Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment, on Thursday, 21st May, 1942, for the Whitsuntide Recess—met, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords].

STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH.

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely—

Princess Elizabeth of York Hospital for Children and Queen's Hospital for Children (Amalgamation, etc.) Bill [Lords].
Pembrokeshire County Council Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for additional provision in the following Bill originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely—

Coventry Corporation Bill [Lords].

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

BOMBAY BARODA AND CENTRAL INDIA RAILWAY BILL.

Lords Amendments considered.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Dennis Herbert): One of the Amendments submitted from another place alters the date of the vesting of certain funds. The other Amendments are purely of a drafting nature.

Lords Amendments agreed to.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.

Read the Third time, and passed.

RAILWAY COMPANIES (THOS. COOK & SON LIMITED GUARANTEE) BILL [Lords].

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

MEDICAL CLASSIFICATION (STAFF-SERGEANT).

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for War why 7590880 Staff-Sergeant H. Davis was placed in medical category A 1, although he had lost one eye?

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): Mr. Davis applied to enlist in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps in August, 1938. Owing to his visual defect, his application had to come to the War Office. It was there given special approval, and he was classed "fit for service in any part of the world." He had lost his left eye through an injury, not disease; the sight of his other eye was good, and he was otherwise fit. This classification was therefore correct. In November, 1940, a new system of medical categories was introduced, and Davis' original classification was translated as A 1, when it should have been B 3. I very much regret this error, the cause of which cannot now be traced. Even in category B 3, however, Staff-Sergeant Davis would have been fit for service as a tradesman with his corps in any part of the world.

Sir J. Mellor: Does my right hon. Friend know whether or not this soldier was classified as a tradesman at the time when he was reported missing?

Sir J. Grigg: I cannot say without notice, but I will look into that point and will let the hon. Member know.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Was Nelson A 1?

ARMY COUNCIL INSTRUCTIONS.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the


issue of Army Council Instructions in two parts, so that instructions affecting the welfare of the troops and not requiring security precautions may be freely available to hon. Members?

Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir. The separation of Army Council Instructions into two series would present considerable administrative difficulties. The more important instructions of a permanent sort, affecting the Army as a whole, already appear in Army Orders, which are published. And matter issued through Army Council Instructions, which calls for publicity outside the Service, is published in special leaflets or pamphlets.

Mr. Bellenger: In view of that answer, would not administrative difficulties be saved if my suggestion were adopted; and can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any reason other than strict adherence to tradition which prevents this suggestion being adopted?

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir, the very admirable reason not to multiply the use of paper, which on all hands is regarded as the prime sin of the Army.

VENEREAL DISEASE (PREVENTIVE FACILITIES).

Mr. Hannah: asked the Secretary of State for War why official sanction has been given for the use of contraceptives in the Army; and will he reconsider his attitude in this matter?

Sir J. Grigg: In the British Army, as in other armies, facilities are provided whereby soldiers who wish to do so may obtain preventives against venereal disease. I do not propose to withdraw these facilities.

GUNNER'S APPLICATION.

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now made arrangements for the transfer into paratroops of Gunner Pragnell, No. 1732067, the details of whose case he has already received?

Sir J. Grigg: Gunner Pragnell has been interviewed with a view to posting to a Parachute Battalion, but, I regret to say, was not found suitable.

Dr. Thomas: In view of the keenness of this young man, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he could reply earlier to the inquiries of hon. Members, and thus

avoid Questions on these private matters having to be placed on the Order Paper?

Sir J. Grigg: I will try to answer them as quickly as I can.

Mr. Buchanan: Will the right hon. Gentleman also see that he takes the requisite time to go into these matters before replies are made?

Sir J. Grigg: I imagine that the delay in replying in this case was due to the fact that the man was sent for an interview, and that the result of that interview was awaited.

MOBILE VOLUNTARY AID DETACHMENTS.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the concern felt at the proposal to enrol all mobile Voluntary Aid Detachments into the Auxiliary Territorial Service and the strong opposition to such a step, he will say what action the Government propose to take in the matter?

Sir J. Grigg: No decision has been taken in this matter. The British Red Cross Society and the Order of St. John are considering certain proposals, designed to make the best use of woman-power, and nothing more will be done until their views have been made known to the Army Council.

Mr. Lipson: Can my right hon. Friend give any reasons why a change of this kind should be contemplated at all, in view of the feeling among V.A.Ds. that it is most undesirable?

Sir J. Grigg: I could not give all the reasons in answer to a question. It would take too long. As far as I can make out, all solutions of this problem are open to objection, and this one has been put forward as the least bad.

Mr. Lipson: Will the House be given an opportunity of discussing the matter before a decision is arrived at?

Sir J. Grigg: I will consider that.

CADET FORCE (COMMISSIONS).

Colonel Arthur Evans (for Captain Crowder): asked the Secretary of State for War the details of the conditions whereby the King's commission will be granted in the Territorial Army Reserve of Officers to officers of the Army Cadet Force?

Sir J. Grigg: As the answer is rather long, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer;

King's commissions in the Territorial Army Reserve of Officers will in future be granted to officers doing duty with the Army Cadet Force who at present hold Lord Lieutenant's Commissions, and are approved by the War Office. It is not intended that the holder of a King's commission in the Army Cadet Force shall thereby be exempt from military service under the National Service (Armed Forces) Acts. A candidate for such a commission must therefore undertake, if so required, to attend a medical examination, and, if found fit, to relinquish his commission so that he may be called up for military service by the Minister of Labour. Commissions may be granted to candidates who are in reserved occupations or whose call-up for military service has been deferred, or who are found unfit for military service. Commissions may also be granted to candidates under the age for military service, but they must likewise undertake to relinquish their commissions on reaching the age for military service, unless they secure exemption or deferment. Commissions will not be granted to those under 17 years of age.

A cadet officer will hold the King's commission only so long as he is doing duty with a cadet unit. He will be subject to Territorial Army Regulations for discipline, and commissions may be terminated at any time under these Regulations on account of ill-health or misconduct or any other reason which, in the opinion of the Army Council, renders this desirable. In particular, commissions will be terminated if the conditions for efficiency, which may be laid down from time to time, have not been met. King's commissions will be granted in the rank of 2nd Lieutenant. There will be no war substantive promotions to higher rank other than to war substantive lieutenant. Previous service on a Lord Lieutenant's Commission or previous commissioned service with the King's commission will count towards the service required for war substantive promotion to lieutenant. Cadet officers may be given higher acting rank, if approved, after appointment to King's commissions. Cadet officers will not be eligible for temporary rank, and they will relinquish

acting rank on ceasing to perform the duties for which it is granted. King's commissions for service with the Army Cadet Force may be held concurrently with a Home Guard commission. The holder of a King's commission in the Army Cadet Force will receive free uniform, i.e., battle dress, if he does not already possess such uniform as a member of the Home Guard. He will not, however, be eligible for any financial benefits from Army funds, beyond such expenses as may be payable from the funds of the Army Cadet Force.

INTELLIGENCE AND PROPAGANDA, MIDDLE EAST.

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for War the qualifications of Major Talbot Rice for his post in charge of the Turkish section of intelligence at the War Office; what military experience he has; and whether he can speak Turkish?

Sir J. Grigg: Major Talbot Rice is able to speak Turkish and was chosen for his present appointment because of his ability and knowledge of the various countries with which his section deals. He was a member of the Army Officers' Emergency Reserve and was called up in the summer of 1939.

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Secretary of State for War how many civilians have been granted commissions since the outbreak of war, for intelligence and propaganda work connected with the Near and Middle East?

Sir J. Grigg: No records are kept of civilians granted commissions for any particular theatre of war, and I regret therefore that I cannot give this information.

Sir I. Albery: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the services of Regular officers who had already been trained and made suitable for this work have been adequately employed?

Sir J. Grigg: That point arises, I think, on the hon. Member's next Question.

Sir I. Albery: asked the Secretary of State for War how many officers, serving and retired, have, during the last 10 years, qualified for an extra grant for the study of Middle East languages, on the lines of the War Office pamphlet, Regulations


relating to the Study of Foreign Languages; and how many of such officers are in employment in which these qualifications can be made adequate use of?

Sir J. Grigg: Between 1930 and 1939, 17 officers qualified as first class and 14 as second class interpreters in one or other of the Middle East languages. Of the former, 9 are now serving in the Middle East, and of the latter 5 are serving in the Middle East, 2 have become casualties and one has retired. My hon. Friend will, of course, realise that it may easily happen that officers who have language qualifications may have qualifications in other fields which are even more valuable.

CLOTHING PURCHASES.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the Secretary of State for War whether there is to be a reversion to the chit system in respect of the purchase of Army clothing?

Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir. There is no intention of reverting to this system beyond the limited form in which it still obtains.

TRAINING (COMMUNICATIONS).

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will direct that communications concerning training shall, when publicity is considered necessary, be made to Parliament or to the Press in the usual way, and not, in the first instance, to persons or institutions not responsible for training?

Sir J. Grigg: The original communication to which I think my hon. Friend refers was in fact addressed to Army Commanders. As a general rule I agree that if publicity is to be given to such communication's it should be given in the way suggested by my hon. Friend.

Sir J. Mellor: Whatever may have been the merits of that communication, did not the fact of the communication being made to the General Assembly create the impression that our training policy is subject to external influences?

Sir J. Grigg: I should be very sorry if it created that impression, because in fact it is not true.

CAMP SITE (SEWAGE EFFLUENT).

Sir Francis Fremantle: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, in a camp now being prepared

for troops in the home counties, it is proposed to discharge the sewage effluent direct by three boreholes in the chalk from which the water supply for the area is derived; why this proposal, which is opposed to modern sanitary engineering practice, has been proposed by officers in the Service; and whether he will ensure that no such proposals are contemplated under his authority in future?

Sir J. Grigg: In the case of which my hon. Friend has sent me details the chief engineer of the Command discussed the proposal with the local authorities. They at first agreed to it, but on reconsideration objected, and the proposal was therefore abandoned. Existing instructions on this subject enjoin special care where borings are made in chalk and lay down that, in cases of doubt, officers concerned should work in liaison with local health officers and municipal engineers.

Sir F. Fremantle: Is it not advisable that this agreement should be come to not only with the local authorities, but with the water company; and should this proposal have entered the mind of any engineer possessed of modern sanitary experience?

Sir J. Grigg: I will consider the point.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary" of State for War (1) to what extent, and in what way, his Department was connected with the decision to buy food from the American Continent to provide the parcels for prisoners of war;
(2) what part his Department played in the taking of the decision to use the reserve of parcels at Geneva, to bridge the gap to prisoners of war, when the change-over from supply from this country to the United States of America took place; and whether the War Office was a party to deciding the number of parcels to be packed here and the number from the American Continent?

Sir J. Grigg: I am not quite clear exactly what information the hon. Member requires. I understand, however, that I am to have the pleasure of a visit from her on Friday, when I shall be glad to place before her all the information at the disposal of the War Office. If after that she cares to repeat her Questions in


more precise terms, I shall be glad to answer them.

Miss Ward: While appreciating that reply, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will disclose all the private information at that interview?

Mr. Thorne: Are they going to have a cup of tea together?

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Why should there be any secret in this matter? Why cannot the whole House be told?

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War to what extent a reorganisation of the Prisoners' Medical Comforts Department of the Red Cross is in contemplation, and what form these changes will take?

Sir J. Grigg: I am informed that there has been no reorganisation of the Department, but I understand that the nature and number of parcels to be despatched by it has recently been reviewed in the light of experience and certain improvements have been adopted.

Sir A. Knox: Is there any truth in the report that this organisation is to be handed over to a private firm to carry out the work more efficiently?

Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir, but a certain amount of extra packing which is involved in the improvement will be given to a private firm.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that British prisoners of war in Stalag VIII B had received no parcels during the six weeks previous to 12th April and that they then only got one parcel to 11 men; also that parcels sent by next-of-kin in October had not reached the camp up till 12th April; and if he will make inquiries?

Sir J. Grigg: I cannot confirm the details given in the first part of the Question; but my hon. and gallant Friend will be glad to learn that in addition to a number of standard food parcels, the Red Cross Society despatched to this camp from Geneva, between the middle of February and the middle of April, four consignments of food in bulk approximately equivalent to four parcels a head, and that receipts for the first two consignments are known to have reached

Geneva. As to the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General to his Question on 13th May.

Miss Ward: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the shortage of parcels now being delivered to prisoners of war from the three Services, he will inquire whether it would not be more appropriate to have an Inter-Departmental Committee appointed responsible to the Foreign Office?

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Art-lee): No, Sir. This matter has been very fully dealt with in the answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Membed for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) on the 5th November, 1940, and in the statement circulated by the then Secretary of State for War on 14th October, 1941. The recent temporary shortage of parcels was explained in an answer given on 17th February last.

Miss Ward: In view of the fact that the next of kin have lost faith in the War Office and that in particular no statement as to Mr. Stanley Adams's resignation has yet been made, which appears to be due to the Secretary of State for War, will the right hon. Gentleman kindly look into the matter himself?

Mr. Attlee: Perhaps the hon. Lady will take that matter up with the Secretary of State for War if she has a particular complaint against him.

Miss Ward: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my Question is directed to him? Have the Government ceased to have any interest in the prisoners of war?

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir.

Sir A. Knox: Was not the Department more smoothly run in the last war, when it was under the Foreign Office?

Oral Answers to Questions — CORRAN MOTOR-CAR FERRY.

Major McCallum: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the concern caused not only to the inhabitants of the Western Highlands, but to other essential traffic, by the unsatisfactory manner in which the Corran motor-car ferry across the narrows of Loch Linnhe is maintained; and whether, in view of the waste of time, petrol and tyres


involved in making a 40-mile detour when the ferry-boat is at the bottom of the loch, or otherwise out of action, he will endeavour to have this motor-car ferry taken over by the Argyll and/or Inverness local authorities, or by the Ministry of War Transport?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): My right hon. Friend has not previously received any representations on the subject of the ferry at Corran, which already belongs to the county councils of Argyll and Inverness and is run under the supervision of a joint committee of these councils. On inquiry, I am informed that the joint committee is considering future arrangements, in the light of recent difficulties.

Major McCallum: Is not the Minister aware that the difficulties in connection with this ferry have been going on for at least three years? Although the ferry is owned by the county councils of Argyll and Inverness, it is leased to a private company. Will not my hon. Friend see whether some ararngement can be made to take action speedily to remedy the present state of affairs?

Mr. Westwood: We shall have to await the result of the meeting which has been arranged for the 3rd of this month. No time will be wasted by the committee in dealing with this problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

ALTERNATIVE FUEL.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Secretary for Mines when the Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Henley is likely to make its report on substitute fuels; and whether this report will be made public?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): I would remind the hon. Member that, in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. Ellis Smith) on 24th March, I stated that the report of Lord Henley's Committee had then just been completed. I regret that it has been decided not to make the report public.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Can the Minister tell the House why this report will not be made public?

Mr. Grenfell: It is deemed not to be entirely necessary and not in the public interest.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Having regard to the present coal situation, does not the Minister think there is a good deal of scope for the use of substitute fuels?

Mr. Grenfell: That possibility has been very fully discussed. I do not think there is any lack of information on that wide subject.

Mr. Thorne: Can the Minister say whether substitute fuels can be used for house fires?

Mr. Grenfell: The Question refers to producer gas for road transport.

Sir Richard Acland: Are the oil interests likely to be opposing publication?

Mr. Grenfell: There is no question of oil interests being involved in this matter so far as I know. I have never heard that suggested.

BOYS (APPRENTICESHIP).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has now any further statement to make relative to the question of the employment of youths in coalmining, particularly with regard to a scheme of apprenticeship to that industry?

Mr. Grenfell: The problem of ensuring a sufficient number of boys and youths for mining employment, including the question of apprenticeship, is now under consideration by an independent committee under the chairmanship of Sir John Forster. I am unable to make any further statement pending the report of the committee.

Mr. Adams: Does not the Minister agree that, in view of the fuel situation, this matter is very urgent?

Mr. Grenfell: It is receiving urgent consideration now. There are daily meetings on the subject.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: When is the committee likely to report?

Mr. Grenfell: I cannot say, but it will be soon.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Is the Minister considering making a recruiting appeal to the public schools and universities of this country?

Mr. Grenfell: I have not considered it.

DOMESTIC STOCKS.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Secretary for Mines whether, seeing that council


houses provide space for the storage of coal, he will allow stocks to be accumulated, where possible, during the summer months, thus relieving pressure on transport during the winter?

Mr. Grenfell: The Department has always encouraged householders to stock coal in summer, and will make provision for stocking to be resumed this summer as soon as the supply of coal permits.

STRIKES.

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Secretary for Mines how many unofficial strikes have taken place in the coal industry during the last month; what was their duration; and how many men were involved?

Mr. Grenfell: During the three weeks ended 23rd May there were 86 strikes, involving loss of time by approximately 58,000 wage earners. The duration of the dispute varied, but, in all, 141,688 man-shifts were lost in the period. Information for the week ended 30th May is not yet available.

Sir W. Smithers: What steps have been taken, if any, to bring home to the miners the seriousness of the situation created by unofficial strikes?

Mr. Grenfell: Everything possible has been done to bring home to the minds of the men who have abstained from work the great loss and injury inflicted upon the nation by their action. I am glad to say that almost all the men are back at work to-day.

Sir A. Knox: Are not these strikes illegal?

Mr. Grenfell: They are not strictly illegal.

FUEL AND LIGHTING ORDER, 1939 (WALTHAMSTOW).

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Secretary for Mines what action has been taken as a result of an infringement of the Fuel and Lighting Order, 1939, which was reported to the Walthamstow Borough Council on 27th March, 1942, and in respect of which the town clerk of Walthamstow was instructed to communicate with his Department?

Mr. Grenfell: I regret that the evidence available in this case was not sufficient to warrant proceedings.

Sir H. Williams: Was the name of the person concerned communicated to the Minister?

Mr. Grenfell: Yes, Sir. I have read all the papers in the case, and I do not think there is sufficient ground to warrant proceedings.

PULMONARY DISEASE, SOUTH WALES COALFIELD.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Lord President of the Council what action the Government propose to take following upon the report of the Medical Research Council upon chronic pulmonary disease in the South Wales coalfield?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I have been asked to reply. The recommendations in the report, which affect the Mines Department, as well as the Home Office, are under active consideration, in consultation with my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines. It is not yet possible to make any statement as to the action to be taken, but the urgency of the matter is fully appreciated and it will be dealt with with the least possible delay.

Mr. Griffiths: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this investigation took well over four years and that it is really desirable that urgent action should be taken? Secondly, in framing any new Order, would the Department bear in mind the desirability of ante-dating its operation; otherwise large numbers of men who would be qualified under the report will be disqualified?

Mr. Peake: With regard to the second point, we will certainly take that into consideration. As to the hon. Member's first point, although this inquiry has taken a long time, the report was only published on 16th May, and there have been other matters affecting the coal industry which have been the concern of the Mines Department since that date.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND LIGHT.

WASTE.

Mr. Craik Henderson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will ensure by Order or otherwise, that it shall be an offence for anyone to waste coal, electricity, or gas?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): I am afraid that it would be impossible to enforce an Order in such general terms as my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Craik Henderson: Will the Minister introduce a similar Order in more specific terms? As throwing away a piece of paper is an offence, should it not be an offence also when there is a very grave waste of fuel?

Mr. Dalton: Certain Orders have been made which I have mentioned to the House. There is the Order on advertisement lighting restriction. Perhaps, in the course of the Debate which we may have in the near future, further aspects of this matter will be considered.

Earl Winterton: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say about a fortnight ago that he was considering the whole question of the unnecessary use of lighting in clubs, hotels, restaurants and railway stations? Is he yet in a position to make a statement on the subject?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, not yet, but I shall be upon an early occasion, I daresay.

Mr. Montague: Will the Minister consider encouraging a wider use of wood fires in this country, especially in some areas?

Mr. Dalton: That is part of a rather larger question, and I do not think I will go into it at this moment.

METERS (READINGS).

Mr. Keeling: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, to save labour, he will arrange for gas and electricity meters in any building to be read by the same man whether supplies be rationed or not?

Mr. Dalton: I agree with my hon. Friend that this would be a most sensible and practical economy, and I am in consultation with the representative organisations of the gas and electricity supply industries on this matter. I am glad to know that the Gas, Light & Coke Co, and the County of London Electric Supply Co. have already made such arrangements in certain areas.

GAS (PRICE).

Mr. Keeling: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware

that his prohibition for over a year of any increase in the price of gas caused heavy loss to municipal and commercial gas suppliers; and whether he proposes to grant a subsidy to meet this loss?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. Since the Board of Trade Order was made on 26th May, 1941, prohibiting increases in the price of gas except under licence, less than 10 per cent. of gas undertakings have applied for licences to raise their prices to the public. Most of these applications have been granted in whole or in part. I do not think it can be maintained that gas undertakers are being treated unfairly in comparison with other industries which have suffered as a result of the war and I am not prepared to recommend my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to grant a subsidy from public funds.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

CLOTHES RATIONING.

Mr. Banfield: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the allocation of clothing coupons for overalls, etc., to flour confectioners so as to bring them in line with the allocation for bread bakers, in view of the fact that all bakehouse work involves heavy wear and tear on clothing?

Mr. Dalton: Trade unions representing the workers referred to by my hon. Friend should submit their case for supplementary coupons for the present rationing period to the Board of Trade, through the Trades Union Congress, when I shall be very glad to consider it.

Mr. Banfield: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this matter has been submitted to the Trades Union Congress and that no satisfaction has been obtained? Does he realise that these overalls are necessary in the work of preparing food?

Mr. Dalton: I shall be very glad to look at any argument which my hon. Friend or the trade unions representing these men put up.

Mr. Davidson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the claim of the Clyde Boilermakers Shop Stewards' Association for an increase of extra clothing coupons; and has he any statement to make?

Mr. Dalton: I shall be glad to give full consideration to any claim that trade unions representing shipbuilding workers may put to me through the Trades Union Congress for the present rationing period.

Mr. Davidson: Am I to take it that the right hon. Gentleman recommends the representatives of the men to make applications through their various trade unions, and that such applications will receive his fullest consideration?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. We are always very glad to give full consideration to any application so submitted; we are now just starting a new rationing period, in which supplementary coupons may be adjusted.

Mr. Davidson: Have any representations been made in the past by the unions representing these men?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, certainly.

SMALL TRADERS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of certain advertisements which have appeared in trade and other papers whereby an endeavour is being made to acquire small shops as going concerns at realisation prices; and, since the practice of profiting by distressed circumstances created by the war is undesirable, whether he will take steps to investigate these matters and find an alternative solution to the difficulties of those traders and small businesses which are adversely affected by reason of their personnel being called to the services?

Mr. Dalton: I am aware of the practice to which my hon. Friend refers, and I am considering an amendment of the provisions of the Location of Retail Businesses Order accordingly.

Mr. De la Bère: While appreciating what my right hon. Friend has said, may I ask whether he will take immediate steps to see that small businesses are not absorbed by larger concerns? Any delay must inevitably lead to their being ruined and never being able to get into business again.

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I hope very shortly that the amendment to which I refer may be able to be put into effect.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Will the Minister give consideration to the issue of licences to small businesses which are closed down in consequence of the war, so that they may

have priority in re-establishing themselves after the war?

Mr. Dalton: That is a separate point, but perhaps the hon. Member will put it on the Paper.

Mr. De la Bère: It is a very good suggestion.

NUCLEUS AND CLOSED FIRMS.

Mr. Colegate: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he will give a list of the nucleus firms in the toy trade in this country;
(2) whether he will give the reason for refusing to supply lists of nucleus and closed firms to members of the trades concerned?

Mr. Dalton: It would be contrary to the interests of public security to publish the names of nucleus and closed firms in any industry. The names are, however, given on request, and in confidence, to representative trade associations. I am sending to my hon. Friend, for his confidential information, a list of nucleus toy firms.

Mr. Colegate: Is there any reason why individual traders, who will be very badly affected by these closing Orders, might not have the information, assuming, for example, that they are not members of any trading associations?

Mr. Dalton: It is important, for the reason that I have suggested, to keep this information within as narrow a circle as possible. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the enemy would like to know the details about our concentration of industry.

Sir Percy Harris: Is it seriously suggested that the toy industry is of strategic importance?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, but the reason why we are carrying out concentration in this and other industries is in order to put to a strategical purpose premises, machinery and labour, previously used for non-strategical purposes, for war production and the storage of war material. It is not desirable to tell the enemy about those matters.

Mr. Colegate: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is grave anxiety among people whose small businesses have been closed? Surely there


is no reason why a list should not be given in confidence to such individual firms of firms which have been closed, or even made nucleus firms, so that they can get into touch with each other?

Mr. Dalton: There is no difficulty about getting into touch with other firms for the purpose of combining.

DOMESTIC POTTERY.

Mr. Bowles: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to ensure that more adequate supplies of pottery will be made available to the public at reasonable prices?

Mr. Dalton: An Order has been made under which the manufacture of domestic pottery is subject to licence and, by directions issued yesterday under the Order, production for the home market is restricted to certain simple types of plain white, light ivory and brown pottery. Exports have been reduced by 20 per cent. since 1st May, and a further cut of 20 per cent. will be imposed as from 1st August. By these means, supplies for the home market will be substantially increased. On the recommendation of the Central Price Regulation Committee, I made an Order yesterday regulating the distributors' margins for all domestic pottery and fixing maximum retail prices for certain essential articles which will be marked in three qualities according to their grade. Manufacturers' maximum prices have also been fixed.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken steps to ensure that labour will be left in the Potteries to comply with the Orders?

Mr. Dalton: I hope so, but there is great competition for labour at present.

Mr. Silverman: When will a supply of these utility articles be available to the public, and what steps have been taken to control prices until they are available?

Mr. Dalton: Prices are controlled as from now on. A schedule of prices is attached to the Order which I signed yesterday. So far as production is concerned, we are pushing forward as fast as we can.

Mr. Neil Maclean: Will the Order fixing the prices be made public?

Mr. Dalton: Certainly.

Mr. Mack: Is it necessary to restrict the export of pottery in order to ensure sufficient for the home market?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I said that the home market must take precedence over the export market for this purpose.

CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF EXPORT GROUPS.

Sir P. Hannon: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the selection of the personnel of the Central Committee of Export Groups, he has had consultation with local chambers of commerce and other representative trade organisations; whether Birmingham and the Midland area, with its exporting activity in normal times and its capacity for the production of competitive goods after the war, is represented on this committee; and whether he proposes to publish the terms of reference of the Board of Trade to the Central Committee of Export Groups?

Mr. Dalton: The members of the Central Committee of Export Groups have been selected for their personal ability and their wide experience of industry and export trade, and not as representatives of particular industries. There was, therefore, no question of consulting trade organisations. The terms of reference of the Committee were stated in the reply which I gave on 19th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Neil Maclean).

Sir P. Hannon: Does not my right hon. Friend think that a large industrial area like the Midlands and Birmingham, where alone there are 1,200 separate industries, should have some representation?

Mr. Dalton: If we considered one area, we should have to consider many others, and it was felt to be convenient in this case that the appropriate export groups should be the channel of communication. The Birmingham trades, like any others, will be able to make their views known through their industrial channels.

Mr. McKinlay: Have we not suffered enough in the past from Birmingham's opinion on these things?

Captain Molson: Are the merchants represented on this export group?

Mr. Dalton: I gave the list the other clay; perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will look it up.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE (FOOD SUPPLIES).

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare, what progress has been made in the carrying out of arrangements for the controlled supply of food for the Greek people; and whether the good offices of the Swedish authorities have yet secured the consent of the German and Italian Governments to a satisfactory plan of relief?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): As indicated in my reply of 19th May, we addressed a communication to the Swedish Government on 9th May, requesting elucidation on certain important points in the German and Italian replies. No answer has yet been received to this communication.

Mr. Harvey: Would it be possible to make use of the good offices of the Vatican in order to secure the necessary information?

Mr. Foot: I am sure that the Swedish Government are doing everything possible to secure an early reply to the inquiry.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (FUEL RATIONING).

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare whether he has any information as to the various developments in respect of fuel-rationing schemes in Germany; and what is the present scheme in that country?

Mr. Foot: Solid fuel has been rationed in Germany since the beginning of the war, and the various changes which have been made from time to time have all been designed to reduce consumption. In the year 1940–1941 households heated by stoves were allotted coal and coke according to climatic zones, number of rooms and number of inhabitants. During the year 1941–1942, however, they have had a basic allowance of half a ton of brown coal briquettes, or a lesser amount of better quality fuel. Householders who have no facilities for using gas or electricity received an additional ration. Centrally heated buildings received the same quota as the previous year, provided that it did not exceed 6 tons, but persons living in such buildings who also needed coal for cooking and washing purposes were only permitted 50 per cent. of the previous year's ration. Similar arrangements are being continued this year.

Mr. Stewart: Can my hon. Friend say anything about the rationing of electricity and gas?

Mr. Foot: Electricity and gas have never been rationed in Germany. Of course, they have never been used for domestic purposes to the same extent as in this country.

Mr. Stewart: Would it be true to say that in fact a universal rationing scheme had ultimately to be considerably modified on account of the practical difficulties met with?

Mr. Foot: There has never been a universal rationing scheme, but only one for coal and other solid fuels. There has never been a rationing scheme for gas and electricity.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS REFRESH MENT DEPARTMENT.

Sir H. Williams: asked the hon. Member for Dulwich, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, what steps it is proposed to take to reduce the delays in servicing in the strangers' refreshment room?

Mr. Bracewell Smith: The Kitchen Committee are trying to find additional accommodation, but owing to the limited space available in the Strangers' Refreshment Room, delays in service are bound to arise during the peak periods.

Sir H. Williams: Has my hon. Friend considered the possibility of obtaining the services of some more part-time women to work in that room?

Mr. Smith: It is not a question of increasing the staff, but of increasing the space available. We cannot put a quart into a pint pot.

Sir H. Williams: Is my hon. Friend not aware that the slowness of the service is due to the total inadequacy of the staff?

Mr. Smith: I do not agree that the staff is insufficient. There is only a certain serving space, and you cannot put more than a certain number of people in it.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

PERSONNEL (EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. Craik Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, and to what extent, Civil Defence personnel are being used in useful


work of national importance, when their services can be spared from their ordinary Civil Defence work?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): The policy to be followed in the matter was set out in a circular issued to local authorities on 14th April. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of this circular. Transfers from the Civil Defence services to industry are being made in increasing numbers by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service. Further, other Civil Defence personnel are being employed without change of status on work of national importance not hitherto regarded as Civil Defence duties, but my right hon. Friend has not, as yet, asked the authorities to inform him of the arrangements made or the numbers involved.

Mr. Craik Henderson: While I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, and for what has been done, will he realise that there is still an enormous amount of labour being lost, and will he take every step he can to see that it is utilised and not wasted?

Mr. Mabane: Certainly, Sir.

Mr. Lindsay: Will the hon. Member realise that the circular talks about snow and coal, of which there is not much about? Will he suggest some other work of local importance?

Mr. Mabane: It does not talk about snow and coal as providing the only possible employment for Civil Defence personnel.

LOOTING (PENALTIES).

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the great difficulty of preventing looting during and immediately after air raids and of the reluctance of the judiciary to utilise the death penalty for the offence, he will, to protect the public, now authorise such offenders being dealt with by military courts with plenary powers?

Mr. Peake: From time to time representations have been made to my right hon. Friend both that particular sentences are too heavy and that sentences in general are too light, but the information available as to the penalties imposed by the courts up and down the country does not support the suggestion that there has

been any general reluctance to pass adequate sentences. The suggestion that the time and attention of military officers should be diverted to the business of trying civilian offenders would, I am sure, be unwelcome both to the military authorities and to Parliament.

Sir J. Lucas: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great satisfaction which was felt in a town recently bombed when it was rumoured that the military had been given orders to shoot first and to inquire afterwards?

Mr. Peake: I am not aware of those circumstances, but my hon. and gallant Friend may be pleased to hear that 60 sentences of penal servitude have been imposed for looting.

Dr. Haden Guest: Would the hon. Member make it quite clear that it is not the intention of the Government to establish military courts with plenary powers to deal with special offences, apart from any local circumstances which might make that course necessary?

Mr. Peake: Yes, Sir; that is quite so.

Mr. Mack: Are the Government prepared to establish the death penalty for commercial and economic looting, which, quite apart from the offences which have been referred to, takes place in normal times?

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR EFFORT (FINANCIAL HELP, UNITED STATES AND DOMINIONS).

Mr. Craik Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give time for a discussion on the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for North-East Leeds relating to our appreciation of the financial assistance to the war effort received from the United States of America, the Dominion of Canada and other Dominions?
[That this House desires to place on record its high appreciation of the generous financial assistance which this country has received from the United States of America and from Canada, and its indebtedness to those of our Dominions which have rendered help and assistance in so many ways.]

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): The nation's high appreciation of the generous financial assistance received from the United States of America


and Canada and our gratitude for the help so freely given us in countless ways by the Dominions as a whole are not, I think, in any doubt, and my right hon." Friend the Prime Minister has endeavoured to voice it on various occasions on behalf of the country and of this House. In the circumstances, no formal reaffirmation of our gratitude is, in my judgment, required at this stage.

Sir Stanley Reed: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he does not consider that during the Budget Debate totally inadequate appreciation was expressed of the magnificence of those contributions, when the easing in our financial position is almost entirely due to the assistance from America and Canada?

Mr. Davidson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman guarantee that our appreciation will not lead us into any unwise treaties at the end of this war?

Sir J. Lamb: Is it not a fact that reciprocation has been the best answer that could possibly be given, and that it has been freely given?

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR STRATEGY (SERVICE MINISTERS).

Mr. Cary: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of giving the three Service Ministers a closer and more precise relationship with the strategical conduct of the war?

Mr. Attlee: The three Service Ministers are always present at meetings of the War Cabinet when any matters relating to the conduct of the war are discussed. They have constant access to the Cabinet or to the Minister of Defence at any time they wish. They are also members of the Defence Committee. In practice they work in the closest contact with their respective Chiefs of Staff. It is not proposed to make any alteration in this arrangement at the present time.

Sir A. Knox: Do they know anything about strategy at all?

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA AND SINGAPORE.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Prime Minister whether any reports have yet been received from General Wavell on the loss

of Malaya and Singapore as the result of the request made to him for such a report prior to 14th April, 1942; and whether he has any statement to make?

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir.

Mr. Stokes: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to receive the report, as the Prime Minister told us on 13th April that one had been called for? Six weeks have now passed. Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea when it will arrive?

Mr. Attlee: I cannot say, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that General Wavell is engaged in military operations and has to carry on the war as well as think about past events.

Mr. Stokes: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in order to avoid General Wavell having to do it himself he was asked to appoint an officer to do it for him? Has that been done?

Mr. Attlee: I will make inquiries.

Mr. Shinwell: Has the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made a report; and can that be made available to us?

Mr. Attlee: That is another matter.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Prime Minister whether the steps recommended with regard to the air-raid precautions defences of Singapore were taken; and whether arrangements were planned for the efficient blowing up of the causeway and the destruction of the graving dock?

Mr. Attlee: There was in operation at Singapore a well developed Civil Defence organisation. A local war committee, upon which civil and Service representatives co-operated, was appointed in 1940 and kept the A.R.P. plans under constant review. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative. Arrangements were planned for the efficient blowing up of the causeway, and were carried out with complete success; as regards the graving dock, it is known that the caisson and pumping machinery were destroyed and that, in addition, an oil hulk was sunk across the entrance to the dock.

Mr. Stokes: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the recommendations contained in the report from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster were put


into practice? Is he aware that reports reaching home state that the causeway was so ineffectively blown up that it was repaired by the Japanese in 12 hours?

Mr. Bellenger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the information he has given to the House conflicts with many authoritative reports which have reached this country? Is it not about time that we had some official statement about this matter?

Mr. Attlee: I do not know what reports the hon. Member has had. I am giving the official reports which we have had.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that both the Army and—

Mr. Speaker: rose.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (BRITISH ASSISTANCE).

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that, despite the result of the campaign in Burma, every practicable step will be taken to maintain contact with our Chinese Allies and to send them as many aircraft and other supplies as can be spared so that they can continue to resist any Japanese attack which may be concentrated upon them?

Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's-Government are determined to continue to do everything within their power to assist the Chinese Government in the prosecution of the war in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend as well as in any other way which may prove possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (EMOLUMENTS).

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the disparity in the emoluments enjoyed by those in civilian employ and those serving in the Forces and the hardships thereby entailed, particularly as regards the discharge of such obligations as mortgages, he will consider increasing the pay of those serving in His Majesty's Forces, either by additional weekly payments to the individual or else by instituting a system of deferred payment which would be received in a lump sum by a man on demobilisation?

Mr. Attlee: My hon. and gallant Friend will recollect that the emoluments of the Forces were reviewed by His Majesty's Government a few months ago and that a number of improvements, including the institution of the post-war credit, were announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 10th February last. I cannot in these circumstances undertake now to review the matter afresh. As regards the discharge of financial obligations by members of the Forces, the improved arrangements for war service grants are designed to prevent hardship from this cause.

Sir A. Southby: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the discrepancy in the payment made to one man in the Army as compared with another man who is doing the same job leads to a considerable amount of soreness, and is he aware that the disparity in payment between men who are risking their lives in the service of the country and those in industry is a source of considerable uneasiness throughout the country?

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour Party Conference last week asked for an increase in the pay of these men, and will he take note of that?

Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is still considerable feeling in the country about the treatment of Service men and their dependants, particularly in regard to investigations into their family means? Will he take steps to look into the matter and re-examine it, with a view to an early decision?

Mr. Attlee: I will certainly take note of any points which my hon. Friend brings before me.

Mr. Buchanan: Will the right hon. Gentleman not look into the general question himself? Is he not aware that great movements of different types in this country are feeling keenly about this matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

COAL ROYALTIES (COMPENSATION).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the ownership of coal royalties passes to the Government


what will be the estimated annual income; what will be the amount of compensation to be paid to the coalowners; and in what way will compensation be paid?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): The estimates of royalties on which compensation was based were just over £5,000,000 gross, and just under £4,250,000 net, both figures being before deduction of Income Tax. It is impossible at present to make any reliable estimate of the future income of the Coal Commission. At the vesting date it is likely to be rather below those figures. The compensation, excluding subsidiary coal hereditaments, is fixed at £66,450,000, and will be paid in cash.

Mr. Thorne: Are they going to invest it in War Loan?

BRITISH RESIDENTS ABROAD (PROPERTY AND INCOME RETURNS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken under the Regulation of 27th March to obtain from British subjects resident outside the sterling area returns of their property and income; how many cases have been dealt with; and the total and average sums involved?

Sir K. Wood: The necessary documents and forms are being sent to His Majesty's Representatives abroad, and there will be no avoidable delay in taking action in appropriate cases. Owing, however, to the slowness of communication in present circumstances, some little time will probably elapse before returns can actually be demanded and received.

Mr. Mander: When the returns come in will my right hon. Friend consider giving the information suggested in the Question, or some information of that kind?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, I will give that matter consideration.

EXCESS PROFITS TAX.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the attitude of the Government towards payment of Excess Profits Tax in cases where it is imposible to find the money at the time it is due without seriously restricting such stocking up of lubricating oils or other commodities needed in the war effort as is recommended by the Petroleum Department;

and can arrangements be made for delayed payments to the Revenue where this can be proved to be necessary?

Sir K. Wood: It is important, in the national interest, that Excess Profits Tax should be paid when it becomes due, and that concerns should take all possible steps to ensure that they are in a position to meet their liabilities. I am afraid, therefore, I could not agree that the holding of stocks to which my hon. Friend refers should be regarded in itself as warranting a deferment of collection of any Excess Profits Tax that may be due.

Mr. Hannah: If I send particulars of any special cases of hardship, will they be considered?

Sir K. Wood: Certainly.

Mr. Davidson: Will they be submitted to the Unemployment Assistance Board?

CIVIL SERVICE (WAR DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS).

Sir A. Southby: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what payments are made to the widow of a civil servant who dies as the result of his service in the Armed Forces, over and above the standard pension payable by the Ministry of Pensions?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): There is no pension payable to the widow of a civil servant as such, but a gratuity ranging from 12 to 18 months' pay is payable to the legal personal representatives of an established civil servant of five years, or more, service. In the case of an unestablished civil servant with at least 15 years' service, a gratuity at the rate of one week's pay for each year served is payable to his dependants. These payments are made irrespective of whether the death occurred while the officer was serving with the Forces, or while he was in civil employment.

Sir A. Southby: How is it that in the case of civil servants their previous service entitles their widows to additional payments if they are killed whereas that rule does not apply in the case of flag officers from the Retired List who are now on active service for the duration of the war?

Captain Crookshank: The question of flag officers is another matter. I was dealing with civil servants.

Sir A. Southby: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend consider the principle involved?

RETAIL BUSINESSES (LICENSING).

Sir J. Lucas: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can now make a statement as to obtaining powers to restrict the issue of Excise licences to genuine traders, thus helping to eliminate black-market racketeers?

Captain Crookshank: Yes, Sir. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of a new Regulation which has now been added to the Defence (General) Regulations.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTORAL REGISTRATION AND REDISTRIBUTION (COMMITTEE).

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary what committee is sitting at the present time charged with the duty of formulating a redistribution of Parliamentary seats scheme; how it is constituted; what progress has been made; who has been consulted; and whether questions of electoral reform are also to be considered?

Mr. Peake: The terms of reference and constitution of the Committee on Electoral Machinery were given in a reply by my right hon. Friend to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow (Mr. Bower) on 8th January last. The question of electoral reform is not included in the terms of the reference. I have no knowledge of the procedure adopted by the Committee, which is, of course, free to decide upon the evidence it requires and the sources from which it can be obtained.

Mr. Mander: Does not my hon. Friend think that the time is approaching when a committee should consider the question of electoral reform, as well as that of redistribution?

Mr. Peake: My hon. Friend will, no doubt, be aware of the statement made by the Home Secretary on this matter in the Debate on 23rd October, 1940, to which I am afraid I cannot add at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — BLACKBIRDS AND THRUSHES (TRAPPING).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the number of blackbirds and thrushes which have

been caught and trapped for edible purposes; and whether he can take steps to prevent the wholesale slaughter of these singing birds?

Mr. Peake: I have no information to support the suggestion that large numbers of these birds are being taken for the purpose mentioned, but if my hon. Friend can give me any particulars I will have further inquiry made.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my hon. Friend aware that the food value of these birds is negligible, and that their extermination would be a national calamity? Is he aware of the thrill which men who come back from overseas get on seeing and hearing these wild birds? Will he look into the matter if I give him information?

Mr. Peake: Yes, Sir. We have so far had only one complaint on this matter, and that was without details which would enable us to investigate. I am sure that the bird population as a whole is anxious to play its full part in the war effort.

Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. Member aware that these birds are going, as food, not to those people who need food, but to many what eat too much already? Is it not a scandal that these birds should be killed for such a purpose?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND B.B.C. (GERMAN EMPLOYEES).

Major Lloyd: asked the Minister of Information whether he will give an assurance that it is neither his policy nor that of the British Broadcasting Corporation to employ Germans in the Ministry of Information and in the British Broadcasting Corporation if British subjects with equal knowledge and experience are available?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): Yes, Sir, provided British subjects are suitable in other respects.

Oral Answers to Questions — BACON-CURING INDUSTRY (CONCENTRATION).

Mr. Mander: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food the present position with regard to the concentration of the bacon industry; and


whether he has considered the objections put forward by the Midland Bacon Curers' Association?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's Question, meetings to discuss concentration have been held in London and in Glasgow, to which all members of the bacon-curing industry were invited. My Department is now working out the details of a concentration plan with the representatives of the trade associations. The reply to the last part of the Question is in the affirmative?

Mr. Mander: Would my right hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that this industry is working up to something like 80 per cent. of its pre-war capacity and that the supply of bacon is increasing?

Major Lloyd George: Without accepting either of those two statements, I will certainly look into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — ETHIOPIA (DOCTORS).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether travelling facilities will now be accorded to urgently needed refugee doctors from this country and /or from Palestine to Ethiopia?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Richard Law): I have received no request from the Ethiopian Government to facilitate the journey to Ethiopia of the persons indicated by my hon. Friend, nor have I been informed that the need for them is urgent.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I wish to ask the Leader of the House two questions: First, whether he can make any statement about the Government's proposals with regard to the coal industry, and, second, whether he can indicate the suggested course of Business for to-day?

Sir S. Cripps: The Government's proposal in regard to coal will be contained in a White Paper which will be available to Members in the Vote Office on the next Sitting Day, shortly before the rising of the House. The Government will invite

the House to approve the proposals, and arrangements will be made for a Debate to take place during the next series of Sitting Days. It is proposed to provide two days for a discussion which will take place on a Government Motion.?
With regard to Business for to-day, as already announced, we propose to take Business up to and including the sixth Order on the Order Paper, and, if there is time, we hope to obtain the Second Reading of the Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Bill and the Motion to approve the Bricks (Charges) Order.
On the 2nd and 3rd Sitting Days, as already announced, we hope to obtain the Committee stage of the War Damage (Amendment) Bill.
If there is time on the 3rd Sitting Day, we shall ask the House to approve the Milk Marketing (Special Areas) (Scotland) (Charges) Order.

Sir P. Harris: With reference to the coal industry, are we to understand that the Government's recommendations are definite recommendations which the Government are anxious to put through without delay?

Sir S. Cripps: The right hon. Gentleman will see what the White Paper says. It is the Government's policy as regards coal.

LIBYAN BATTLE AND BOMBING OF GERMANY.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I thought the House would wish to have some news of the important and very severe battle which has now been proceeding for a week in the Libyan desert. Accordingly, I asked General Auchinleck for a statement. I do not think I can do better than read it out in his actual words:
"On the evening of 26th May, General Rommel launched the German Afrika Korps to the attack. He was at pains to explain, in an order of the day issued to all Italian and German troops in his pay, that in the course of great operations they were to carry through a decisive attack against our Forces in Libya, and that for this purpose he had made ready and equipped a force superior in numbers, with perfected armament and a powerful air


force to give it support. In conclusion, he hailed His Majesty the King of Italy and Emperor of Ethiopia, the Duce of the Roman Empire, and the Fuehrer of great Germany. We had foreseen this attack, and were ready for it.
From captured documents it is clear that Rommel's object was to defeat our armoured forces and capture Tobruk. The main ingredients of his plan were, first, to capture our defended locality at Bir Hacheim held by our gallant Allies the Free French; secondly, to pass round by the South of Bir Hacheim the German Afrika Korps, comprising the 15th and 21st German Armoured Divisions to be followed closely by the German 90th (Light) Division, and the 20th Italian Mobile Corps, comprising the 132nd Ariete Armoured Division and the 101st Trieste Motorised Division; thirdly, to attack in strength our positions running South from- the coast at Gazala to the Capuzzo Road. These were held by the South African and 50th British Divisions, the latter including battalions of the East Yorkshire Regiment, Green Howards and Durham Light Infantry.
Air reconnaissance had clearly indicated enemy preparations for attack, and in consequence our Air Forces opened a counter-offensive on the 21st with heavy attacks against enemy forward aerodromes. These attacks were continued each night and supplemented by low flying dawn and dusk attacks by light bombers and fighters. The enemy paid us the compliment of trying to emulate our example on the three nights prior to his final advance on the 27th. He failed to achieve any success and lost a number of aircraft to our fighters and anti-aircraft artillery. On the night 26th–27th May the German Afrika Korps carried out its part of the plan and passed to the south of Bir Hacheim, moving north with great rapidity towards Acroma, and also towards the old battlefields of El Duda and Sidi Rezegh, which were actually reached by some of its most forward troops. These were soon driven off by our armoured forces. Some Axis tanks actually reached the escarpment or cliff overlooking the coast road north of Acroma, but failed to interrupt communication between Tobruk and the

South African troops holding our forward positions.
It is now known that on the same night the enemy attempted a landing from the sea at this spot, presumably with the object of joining up with these tanks, but the hostile craft were driven off by our naval forces, acting in close co-operation with the Army.
Long before they approached El Adem or Acroma the Axis armoured and motorised troops were brought to action by the 1st and 7th British Armoured Divisions, ably seconded by the Britsih Heavy Tank Brigades which were in the area.
The full brunt of the enemy initial advance to the east of Bir Hacheim was taken by the 3rd Indian Motor Brigade Group, which was overborne by sheer weight of metal, but not until after it had inflicted heavy losses on the enemy and seriously impeded his advance. In addition, his columns were subjected to repeated attacks by our fighters and bombers. Meanwhile the attack on Bir Hacheim by the Italian Mobile Corps had been beaten off by the Free or Fighting French troops, with heavy loss, and the northward advance of this force seems to have been seriously delayed in consequence.
The third part of the enemy's plan, namely, the attacks against the northern front of our main positions south of Gazala, materialised on the 27th. They achieved little or nothing. Nevertheless, they seem to have cost the enemy a number of casualties. An attempt to break through our defences along the coast road by the Gazala inlet was easily stopped by the 1st South African Division.
Throughout the 28th, 29th and 30th May there was very heavy and continuous fighting between our armoured divisions and brigades, and the German Afrika Korps backed up by the Italian Mobile Corps. The battle swayed backwards and forwards over a wide area, from Acroma in the North to Bir Hacheim, 40 miles to the South, and from El Adem, which is near Tobruk, to our minefields 30 miles to the westward. Our troops gave the enemy no rest, and, finding himself running short of supplies and water, he had to make gaps in our minefields, one along the


general line of the Capuzzo Road and another 10 miles to the South. These two gaps lay on either side of the defended area held by a brigade of infantry from the North of England. This brigade strenuously resisted the enemy's attempts to pass his transport through their ranks, and on the 28th Air Vice-Marshal Cunningham decided to direct his whole Air Force on to low attack against the enemy armour and motor transport in this region. These attacks were maintained with maximum intensity throughout the following three days, reaching their peak as the enemy endeavoured to pass through the gaps. It is still difficult to give a firm estimate of the number of vehicles and tanks knocked out or disabled by these attacks, but there has been ample confirmation that the effect was very great.
Meantime each night our night bombers were attacking enemy forward airfields and his communications.
By nightfall on 31st May the enemy had succeeded in withdrawing many of his tanks and much transport into one or other of the gaps, which he then proceeded to protect from our attack from the East by bringing many of his antitank guns into action, with which he is well equipped. A large number of his tanks and many transport vehicles, however, remained on the wrong side of this barrier, and these are still being ceaselessly harried and destroyed by our troops, vigorously aided by the bombers and fighters of our Air Force. The latest reports show that the enemy may have withdrawn some of his tanks from the gap areas and a good deal of transport as far back as 20 miles West of our forward positions, but this is unconfirmed. The country to the East of Bir Hacheim which is in our area is being mopped up by our troops, which have destroyed many tanks and vehicles in this area and captured two large workshops.
Fierce fighting is still proceeding, and the battle is by no means over. Further heavy fighting is to be expected, but whatever may be the result, there is no shadow of doubt that Rommel's plans for his initial offensive have gone completely awry and that this failure has cost him dear in men and material.
The Axis air forces have been very active throughout the operations and have made continuous attacks on our troops and communications, but they too have lost heavily at the hands of our Air Forces and our anti-aircraft guns. The speed and effectiveness with which Air support has been given has shown once again the intimate cooperation which has been achieved between the two Services in this theatre.
There has not been time to assess the damage inflicted on the enemy, but a conservative estimate gives the number of his tanks destroyed or captured as about 260, and there is no doubt at all that the number of his transport vehicles destroyed or captured is very large. We have also had our losses, and it is inevitable that in a battle of this kind between armoured forces the casualties of both sides in tanks should be high. Our recovery organisation is, however, working very well, and whereas we have retained control of the battlefield and so can salve our tanks, the enemy cannot recover many of his, which should be permanently lost to him.
Owing to the three days' concentration on low attack and the consequent desperate attempts by the enemy fighters to protect their ground forces, our Air losses have not been light, though in a number of instances our pilots have returned safe and our aircraft are being recovered."
General Auchinleck ends by repeating that the battle is not yet over, and the issue still remains to be decided, but he says that the spirit and morale of our men in Libya, both Army and Air Force, whether they come from India, South Africa, the United Kingdom or elsewhere in the British Commonwealth, and that of our most gallant Allies, the Free French, is magnificent.
In a further telegram the Commander-in-Chief adds:
"The skill, determination and pertinacity shown by General Ritchie and his Corps Commanders, Lieutenant-Generals Norrie and Gott, throughout this difficult and strenuous week of hard and continuous fighting, have been of the highest order."
He further dwells upon the excellent performance of the American Grant tanks, with which all users are well pleased, and


says that our new heavy anti-tank gun has done great execution.
That finishes the message from General Auchinleck. From all the above it is clear that we have every reason to be satisfied, and more than satisfied, with the course which the battle has so far taken and that we should watch its further development with earnest attention.
I ought not to sit down without referring to the mammoth air raid delivered by the Royal Air Force on the Cologne region during the night of 3oth–31st May. In this triumph of skill, daring and diligence against the enemy, all previous records of night bombing have been doubled and excelled. On that occasion no fewer than 1,130 British-manned aircraft operated across the sea. The results have been of a devastating character, but accurate photography has so far been hampered by the pall of smoke which hung over the smitten area. Last night, also, 1,036 machines of the Royal Air Force visited the Continent. Nearly all of these operated on the Essen region, and the first reports received indicate numerous and widespread conflagrations. From this second large-scale raid 35 of our bombers are missing.
I do not wish it to be supposed that all our raids in the immediate future will be above the four-figure scale. Methods of attack will be continually varied according to circumstances. On the other hand, these two great night-bombing raids mark the introduction of a new phase in the British air offensive against Germany, and this will increase markedly in scale when we are joined, as we soon shall be, by the Air Force of the United States. In fact, I may say that as the year advances German cities, harbours and centres of war production will be subjected to an ordeal the like of which has never been experienced by any country in continuity, severity or magnitude.
I am sure the House will wish me to express its compliments to Air Marshal Harris and the officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the Bomber Command, including the efficient and devoted maintenance staffs, upon the work which they are doing and the results achieved. Congratulations upon these encouraging events are also due to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, to the Chief of the Air Staff and to the Air Ministry upon the activities of those committed to their charge.

Mr. Greenwood: I feel sure the House will have welcomed the cheering news as regards the Libyan Battle and will express the hope that my right hon. Friend will come soon with the news of the victorious completion of this desperate and important encounter. I am sure Members will also wish me to say that we would welcome communication of the congratulations of this House to all branches of the Air Force concerned on their magnificent achievement.

Mr. Bellenger (Bassetlaw): With reference to the illuminating statement made by the Prime Minister, can he say whether that was a special report called for from General Auchinleck by the right hon. Gentleman in addition to the ordinary communiques, and when that information was received?

The Prime Minister: The, text of what I said is being issued simultaneously in a Cairo communique at this moment.

BILSTON CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

COAL (CONCURRENT LEASES) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — MINISTER OF WORKS AND PLANNING [MONEY].

Resolution reported:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision in connection with the appointment of a Minister of Works and Planning, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) such salaries or remuneration of that Minister and any secretaries, officers or servants appointed by him as the Treasury may determine; and
(b) the expenses of that Minister, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury."

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — MINISTER OF WORKS AND PLANNING BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Functions of Minister of Works and Planning.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir Robert Tasker: I wish to invite the attention of the Committee to the real meaning of this Clause. It means setting up a staff. What does this alteration really mean to the practical people of this country? It is merely an alteration in name, the transference of one Department of State to a new Minister and a portion to another Department of State, but it does add to the number of officials employed. It takes something away from the Minister of Health. What is to be gained by agreeing to this Clause? This Bill, we read, has been
presented by Mr. Henry Strauss, supported by Sir John Anderson, Mr. Ernest Brown, Sir William Jowitt and Mr. Attorney-General
—a formidable team. At the same time this Bill carries with it the support of some 160 Ministers, Under-Ministers, and Parliamentary Private Secretaries, none of whom seem to be particularly well informed on this subject. The Bill also carries with it the support of certain Members of the House to whom anything which emanates from the Front Bench is agreeable. Nobody who has had long experience of town planning regards this proposal with favour. There was only one exception as far as I can gather. Everybody else who has worked on town planning, not only since 1932 but for a much longer period, desires a bigger and more comprehensive Measure than this. Neither Clause 1 nor any other part of the Bill for that matter, will improve town planning.

The Deputy-Chairman: I must point out to the hon. Member that he cannot discuss what is not in the Bill and that he cannot on this occasion make a Second Reading speech.

Sir R. Tasker: Paragraph (c) of Subsection (1) deals with the functions of the Minister of Health which it is proposed to transfer. Are we not, then, entitled on Clause 1 to discuss those functions? If not, surely it reduces these proceedings

to a farce. I submit that the functions exercised by the Minister of Health under the Act of 1932 and the functions proposed to be exercised by the new Minister are open to discussion. That changing name will not lead to greater efficiency.

The Deputy-Chairman: No, I think not. That would involve an Amendment of the Town and Country Planning Act. The hon. Member cannot, on this occasion, propose to amend another Measure.

Sir R. Tasker: I am not seeking to amend it. My point is that we should be permitted to discuss what is actually in Clause 1 of this Bill. I do not want to go over all the proposals of the Bill or to make a Second Reading speech, but surely this Committee is free to consider whether it would be wise and prudent to agree to Clause 1, as it is here presented to us. That is the point that I wish to make. Is it not in Order to do so?

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Member proceeds, I will stop him when I think he is out of Order.

Sir R. Tasker: All I wish to point out is that the Ministry is really confined in its operation to town planning as now exercised by one department of the Minister of Health. I submit that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who have had experience on' this matter are satisfied with the manner in which the Ministry of Health has carried out its duties and that no satisfactory reason has been advanced for a departure such as is proposed here. Clause 1 really means creating groups of officials whose actions are governed by rules and regulations which become so obscure that reference is made from one Department to another, each declining to accept responsibility.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I wish to make one or two inquiries from the representative of the Govt. Clause I definitely proposes to transfer certain powers to the Minister of Works and Planning. I wish to know, first, whether, in order to exercise those new powers and to cope with the new work involved, there is to be any change within the Department itself. In the past there has been considerable criticism of the Ministry of Works and Buildings. We know that representatives of private firms—big, powerful, privately-owned building


organisations—are in key administrative posts in this Ministry. We have had examples, for instance, of important officials from private firms such as Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Company, Wimpey's and other organisations, men in fact who have been convicted in the courts of serious petrol offences, taking part in the administrative tasks of the Ministry of Works and Buildings. I suggest that unless a considerable change is to be made with regard to the personnel and the organisation within the Ministry itself, if would be very unwise to transfer these important powers to the Minister.
I would point out, for instance, that one organisation which has sent representatives to this Ministry—to whom these powers are being conferred—is Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co. This organisation owns in London a big hotel, cafe and dining establishment known as Oddenino's. I would like to ask the Minister whether, when these powers have been transferred, meetings or functions arranged between various representatives with regard to planning all over the country, are still to take place at Oddenino's which is under the control of this organisation. Those are questions to which I would be interested to have an answer. I feel very seriously that in the transfer of these powers and in connection with this great work of planning for the future of the country, there should not be the slightest breath of suspicion on the personnel of the bodies to be entrusted with this important task.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Henry Strauss): With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker), I think it touches the general principle of this Bill, which was fully discussed on the Second Reading. Clause 1 states the general effect of the Bill, and the remaining Clauses are consequential or consist of machinery. The hon. Member will, therefore, forgive me if I do not on this occasion repeat what was said in the Debate on the Second Reading.

Sir R. Tasker: Does the hon. Gentleman allege that a change in name will lead to greater efficiency?

Mr. Strauss: I never made any such allegation during the previous Debate,

nor do I make it to-day, but I think that the Committee would be unwilling to embark on a consideration of matters which were fully dealt with on that occasion. I would remind the Committee that the hon. Member for Holborn then had a Motion on the Paper for the rejection of the Bill, which was logically in accord with his speech to-day, but at the conclusion of the Debate he withdrew that Motion. The matter of internal organisation raised by the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) concerns mainly, I think, that branch of the Ministry for which my hon. Friend the other Joint Parliamentary Secretary answers, and he made a speech on the Second Reading. I cannot see that the mere transfer of powers by this Bill in itself involves any change in the organisation of the Ministry. There are many who are already working and have worked in the planning section, and there will be certain transfers of staff from the Ministry of Health, but I hope the hon. Member will forgive me if I do not give any detailed answer on the other section of the Ministry with which I am not directly concerned, and which is not, indeed, directly affected by this Clause.

Mr. Davidson: The people to whom I refer are in administrative posts within the Ministry dealing with building materials and many other such matters that must arise under these new powers. All I am asking is that, whoever takes over this particular department, the personnel will be very carefully inspected and that the past mistakes of the Ministry of Works and Buildings with regard to the employment of people of such dubious character will not be repeated. That is all I ask.

Mr. Strauss: I am certain that the closest examination will be made of those who are employed by the Ministry. I think that if the hon. Member wishes for any further reply on the matter about which he has raised a question, it will be more appropriately given by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings, who has just entered the Committee.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Officers, remuneration and expenses.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir R. Tasker: I want to raise an objection to this Clause and to call the attention of the Committee to the very extraordinary position in which the House will be placed by this Clause. A careful perusal of the Clause indicates that the House will no longer exercise control over money. I suggest to the Minister, for his consideration, that it would be in accordance with the usual practice if, in line 12, the words "the Treasury" were deleted and replaced by "the House of Commons." The Committee ought not lightly to pass a Clause of this sort, which would surrender to a set of Treasury officials the whole of control over finances. What will be involved? Nobody knows. The Minister cannot tell us what money will we involved; the Treasury cannot tell us; but if one takes a comparable case of the Ministry of Works and Buildings, there has been elicited the fact that 13,150 people are employed by that Ministry. No one will deny that this Measure will eventually cover more than ten times as much work as is covered by the Ministry of Works and Buildings, and if ten times the staff is to be employed, there will be huge amounts of money under the control of the Treasury and over which the House will be able to exercise no control. The proposal is an amazing one to put forward, and I attribute it to the loose wording of the Parliamentary draftsmen. Before pressing the Committee to agree to the Clause, I ask the Minister to take these matters into consideration and to give the Committee some more enlightenment as to what is really meant by the provision.

Mr. H. Strauss: I think the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker) has unnecessary apprehensions. This Clause is in accordance with the usual form, and in fact a precisely similar Section is already in force and is the statutory provision under which the Minister is acting at the present time, namely, the Ministers of the Crown (Emergency Appointments) Act, 1939, Section 3 of which is in similar terms to the Clause now under consideration.

Mr. Davidson: Does that deal with Parliamentary Secretaries?

Mr. Strauss: As I explained on the Second Reading, the position is that the matter is already within the control of the House through the annual Appropriation Act and, of course, the Vote for the Department, but it is customary, when setting up a new Ministry, to insert a Clause of this kind, although not strictly necessary, to remind the House that it does involve moneys provided by Parliament. I think the real effect of the provision is almost precisely the opposite to what the hon. Member for Holborn fears. It makes clear that the House will exercise control through the proper machinery for the purpose, and that is really all there is to it. I do not think hon. Members would wish me to trouble them with numerous precedents, but the provision is in common form and is the appropriate provision when a new Ministry is set up.

Mr. David Adams: Are we to understand that the House will have the right to reject, if necessary, excessive expenditure under this head?

Mr. Strauss: It will have the same powers as it has always had on Votes and on the Appropriation Act. The hon. Member is aware of what can be done under the annual Appropriation Act.

Mr. Davidson: I take it that any Member of the House will be at liberty to ask a question with regard to the salary of any particular official appointed?

Mr. Strauss: I think that is so, but it is not for me to give any ruling about what may be asked in a Parliamentary Question. The House has its methods with all the Departments, and no change has been made in this respect.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Capacity to sit in House of Commons.)

Mr. Dcnman: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 26 and 27, and to insert:
Provided that during any period during which the Minister is a member of that House not more than one such parliamentary secretary shall sit as a member thereof, and, during any other period, not more than two such parliamentary secretaries shall sit as members thereof.


The effect of this Amendment is exceedingly simple, As the Bill stands, there can be three Parliamentary representatives of the Department sitting in the House at the same time. The Amendment seeks to reduce that number to two, so that at no time shall there be more than two representatives of the Department in the House. They may be either the Minister and one Parliamentary Secretary, or two Parliamentary Secretaries, as is the case at the present time. The Amendment arises directly out of the remarkable speech made by the Chairman of Ways and Means on the occasion of his presenting to the House the Report of the Select Committee on Offices of Profit under the Crown. It will be remembered that that Committee was a good deal concerned at the increasing number of Members of the House who were absorbed in the task of the Executive Government. By that means the number of independent critics of the Government was steadily being reduced, and the powers of the Executive being steadily increased. The Chairman of Ways and Means then told us that there were three chief principles that should guide our thoughts on this matter, the second of which was the need to limit the control or influence over the House by the Executive Government by means of an undue proportion of officers being Members of the House. The Committee, in fact, made a recommendation that the representatives of the Departments should be limited to a specific number, and that recommendation, as part of the whole Report, was accepted by the House. It seems to me to follow that if you limit the number of representatives of the Departments that may sit on the Front Bench, it is reasonable to limit the proportion out of that number which is attached to any one Department.
We know quite well that there are some offices that have more than three representatives. The Treasury, the Army, and the Navy are examples. At the present time, more than one Department at any rate has three representatives in the House, but that is purely a question of war conditions, and is not intended to be a permanent arrangement. I suggest that on this occasion, when we are setting up a Department as a permanent part of our organisation of Government, we should lay down the sound constitutional maxim that in ordinary conditions two

Parliamentary representatives are as many as any normal Department should possess. Accordingly I move the Amendment standing in my name.

Mr. H. Strauss: The Government consider that, when the new Ministry is set up, it is a reasonable provision that not more than two Ministers should sit in this House and that the third Minister should sit in another place. In these circumstances I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

Sir R. Tasker: If that principle is to be accepted in this case, is it to apply to all Bills, because, if so, we shall have a House packed with supporters of the Government?

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Provisions as to Orders in Council.)

Mr. Bossom: I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, at the end, to insert:
subject always to any such Order in Council being laid before Parliament not later than 21 days before the date on which it is brought into operation, and provided that no such Order shall be made at any date beyond six months after the date of the Armistice.
As I understand it, this Bill is dealing primarily with post-war planning, but this Clause at it stands confers abnormally wide powers on the Minister, giving him the power to legislate, without reference to Parliament, by Orders in Council. The House has agreed on many occasions that for war needs Orders in Council are imperative, but this Bill is not a war Measure, and therefore there is no such urgency. The Bill is more concerned with after the war, and I cannot see why the Minister desires to have these rights instead of giving the House the right to discuss such matters or know of the Orders in Council in the ordinary way.
The Committee on Ministers' Powers proposed a series of safeguards, but this Bill includes none of those safeguards, although they have been introduced in the case of nearly every Bill since the recommendation was made in 1932. It is unfortunate that this new Ministry should ask for these special powers. To my mind these special powers are not needed, and I


hope that the Minister will look favourably upon this Amendment and will not create a precedent by insisting upon this privilege which will, I believe, be undesirable in the eyes of this House.

Sir Francis Fremantle: I rise to support the general principle of this Amendment. I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) whether it should not also apply to the other provisions. I am not clear why he has limited it to Subsection (3a).

Mr. Bossom: I have another Amendment of a somewhat similar nature which I desire to move on the next Sub-section of this Clause.

Sir F. Fremantle: I wish to support this Amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone has said, this Bill proposes, and rightly proposes, to give tremendous powers to the Minister of Works and Planning. I hope that the Minister will use these powers to the full, but these rights will mean infringing the personal and corporate rights of concerns, persons and administrations throughout the country. Local and small administrations, as well as rich and poor, will be affected. It is obviously of great importance, when exercising such totalitarian powers as this Bill gives, that not only shall you do right, but you shall seem to do right, and I am afraid that, if this Amendment is not passed, many of the proposals which we planners are keen to have will be misrepresented by those who take a short-sighted view, and will be discussed in the Press, in correspondence and in articles as proposals violently infringing personal rights. Therefore it is right that we should be able to raise these matters in the House of Commons, and I hope that some such provision will be made, so that Orders in Council can be discussed before they become law.

Sir R. Tasker: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) is wrong in attributing tremendous powers to the Minister, because it seems to me that the powers conferred upon him under this Measure are already enjoyed by the Commissioner of Works and the Minister of Health. I desire, however, to support the Amendment, because unlimited powers can be imported under Orders in Council or under

Defence Regulations, which, I submit, ought not to be done.

Mr. H. Strauss: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) and other Members who have supported his Amendment have overlooked the qualifying words which govern this provision. I explained at length on the Second Reading why it was proposed to carry out these transfers by means of Orders in Council, and I referred to the great number of minor Acts and instruments which will have to be revised in order to substitute the Minister for the former Commissioners of Works and to make consequential changes. The powers sought under this provision are limited to what is necessary or expedient having regard to transfers effected under the Act. The Subsection says:
His Majesty may, by Order in Council, make such incidental, consequential and supplemental provisions as appear to His Majesty to be necessary or expedient having regard to any transfer effected under this Act.
It repeats in sub-paragraph (a) the words:
to such extent as appears to be necessary or expedient as aforesaid.
Its purpose is to incorporate in various documents the change of name and to make various consequential changes rendered necessary' by the transfer. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) attributes powers to the Minister which are certainly not conferred by the Bill. In fact, that was one of the criticisms directed against it on the Second Reading. It does not confer, either by this or any other Clause, such powers on the Minister as my hon. Friend suspects. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone suggested that something unprecedented was being done. That is not so. There are numerous precedents for conferring power to amend Statutes by Order in Council. It is perfectly reasonable that, when a Bill transfers main powers, subsidiary machinery should be worked out at leisure and effected by Order in Council.

Mr. Davidson: I take it that such an Order in Council will automatically come to the House and lie on the Table?

Mr. Strauss: It will appear in the Statutory Rules and Orders. It is a common practice, once a general principle is enacted by Parliament, to give power to


effect consequential changes by a subsidiary instrument. This was done in the Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916, the Ministry of Health Act, 1919, the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, the Ministry of Supply Act, 1939, and the Ministers of the Crown (Emergency Appointments) Act, 1939. In all of them power was given to effect these subsequent adaptations of Statutes and to make consequential changes by Order in Council. There is, however, one respect in which the powers that, we seek go somewhat beyond the precedents that I have mentioned. That is in including the word "repeal." The reason for that is that "enactment" does not necessarily mean the whole of an Act. There are actual Sections the whole of which we may want to get rid of because they will become obsolete by virtue of the transfer. For instance, there is a provision in the Crown Lands Act, 1851, which provides that any two Commissioners or the First Commissioner may exercise the functions of the Commissioners of Works, a provision which will be meaningless when the Commissioners of Works cease to exist. The right way of dealing with such a provision is to do away with it, and therefore, although it would have been arguable that such treatment would have been covered by the word "adapt," for which there is ample precedent, it was thought proper to put in the word "repeal" to make clear that the whole of a Section might go in that manner.
I can give the most explicit assurance that no sinister use is going to be made, or in my opinion could be made, of the powers contained in this Section of the Bill. It is absolutely governed by the limiting words. The consequential changes in various instruments that we seek to make under the sub-section which my hon. Friend quoted are in all cases changes made necessary by the transfer of powers which is effected under the Bill. They are minor consequential changes. The object is to translate the language of old Statutes and instruments into language made appropriate by the transfers. To effect any major reform in any of those Acts, or any reform other than translating them into appropriate language, we should certainly have to come back to the House. There is no sinister intention whatever behind the provision.
Another matter that my hon. Friend raised was a proposed limitation of time during which these changes could be effected by Orders in Council. I think that that, again, would be inappropriate. Such time limitations may be appropriate in a war-time Act, which itself is coming to an end after a certain period, but it would be without precedent in a piece of permanent legislation. If my hon. Friend says, nevertheless, that these adaptations ought to be effected within a reasonable period, the time limit should obviously be from the passing of the Act rather than from the Armistice. Everyone is anxious, however, that civil servants and Parliamentary draftsmen should give priority to urgent work. There are a certain number of Statutes which will undoubtedly be dealt with by Orders in Council at a very early date in order to effect the necessary changes, and that will be done very quickly, but there is a vast body of legislation which really has to be gone through at leisure and to which no one would desire that any civil servant or Parliamentary draftsman should have to give urgent attention now under the necessity of a time limit. There is really no urgency in the matter at all, and, having regard to the amount of revision of minor Statute law involved, I think there is an overwhelming case against any limitation in time.

Mr. Bossom: May I have a definite assurance that these powers will not be used to do anything other than bring into the Bill exactly what has already been approved by this House and that nothing new will be introduced under the guise of an Order in Council?

Mr. Strauss: I want to give the most explicit assurance, but I am not sure that the words my hon. Friend asks me to repeat would be entirely appropriate for the purpose. The whole Clause is purely subsidiary machinery. It is for rewriting various documents in appropriate language made necessary by the transfer.

Mr. Davidson: Or repealing.

Mr. Strauss: A Section here or there might be repealed, certainly.

Mr. Davidson: It says:
repeal any enactment, order, regulation, scheme, deed, agreement or other instrument relating to the transferors or their functions or property to such extent as appears to be necessary or expedient.


It gives them the power to repeal any agreed enactments.

Mr. Strauss: I do not think there is anything between us on this. I thought that I had made clear that the word "enactment" does not necessarily mean the whole of a Statute or document. There may, of course, be some Order the whole of which is rendered obsolete. The whole of the powers given by this sub-clause are limited by the words to which I have drawn attention, namely, "necessary or expedient having regard to any transfer effected under this Act." There are four classes of transfer: from the Commissioners of Works, from the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, from the Minister of Works and Buildings—although that does not apply in this case because he has his powers under Defence Regulations—and the town and country planning powers of the Minister of Health under the Act of 1932 and various minor Acts. In some of these minor Acts where the Minister of Health has planning powers and where in future the Minister of Works and Planning will exercise planning powers, a certain amount of rewriting or revision may be necessary. I gave some examples on Second Reading. There are the London Squares Preservation Act, 1931, the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act, 1938, the Allotments Act, 1925, the Middlesex County Council Act, 1934, and other Acts. In all those a certain amount of rewriting will be necessary in order to substitute the Minister of Works and Planning for the Minister of Health. That is a comparatively simple matter, but in the case of ancient documents, deeds and Acts where the Commissioners of Works are concerned there are rather more complicated changes. It may not be a mere substitution of one name for another, but there are certain provisions, one example of which I gave the Committee, which have become wholly inappropriate and are no longer necessary. My undertaking is that nothing will be done under this provision except the rewriting of these documents in appropriate language in order to carry out the transfers I have mentioned. For any Amendment of the law me must, of course, come back to the House.

Mr. Maxton: Why "of course" when you have such a sweeping Clause? I am here as a

detached person and I have listened with interest to the Minister's defence against the Amendment. This Clause gives the most sweeping powers to some official somewhere in a backroom to repeal or rewrite the law in any way, not for a week or two, but for a long-term period. All that we have to limit the great power which we are handing away is an undertaking from the Parliamentary Secretary. We accept it as coming from him for the period while he remains in office and has some influence on the matter. It is, however, a pretty weak limitation.

Mr. Strauss: I am sorry I have not made myself clear. I gave that undertaking, but perhaps it was not necessary for the matter does not depend upon my undertaking. There are the words of limitation in the Bill itself to which I have drawn attention. It would be entirely contrary to those words of limitation if this power were used to alter the effect of any Act or instrument beyond what was necessary by reason of the transfer of powers which is mentioned in the limitation. I ask the hon. Member to read the Bill. I do not know whether his fear is that the limitation will be wholly ignored by a Government Department.

Mr. Maxton: I am not making the case that it would be wholly ignored, but the Parliamentary Secretary might not be in office when these documents are rewritten and brought up to date. Whatever this fellow in a backroom writes will be the law and he will decide to what extent he recognises the limitation.

Mr. Strauss: I have mentioned a considerable number of Acts where a power of this kind has been given, and I do not think any Member can quote an example of any such abuse as has been hinted at.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is not this Sub-section in complete conflict with the Minister's Powers Report of 1932? From time to time Governments have tried to over-rule it. There was an exhaustive investigation into the principle involved, and why not accept the Amendment and do away with the trouble?

Mr. Strauss: I am afraid I have not examined the Clause with reference to the matter alluded to by my hon. Friend.

Sir H. Williams: This is the first exception.

Mr. Strauss: No. I do not know whether my hon. Friend was in the Committee when I quoted the previous examples, but there was one as recent as the Ministry of Supply Act, 1939, which covers the point as far as "adaptation" is concerned. The word "repeal" is novel, and that is why I thought it right to bring it to the attention of the Committee, but there is nothing in this Clause which takes the use of this power outside the limiting words to which I have drawn attention.

Sir H. Williams: Who is to judge the matter?

Mr. Strauss: If the hon. Member wishes to know who is to be the judge and to discuss the more legal aspects of the matter, there is another hon. Member sitting on this Bench who is more qualified to speak. I do not think I can usefully add to what I have said except to repeat that, except with regard to the matter to which I have drawn attention where the words go beyond previous provisions of the kind—and I have given the reason for them—there is nothing novel in this power, which has been frequently used and never abused, and I do not think there is any substance in the fears which have been expressed.

Sir Ernest Shepperson (Leominster): The Minister has been subjected to criticism from all sides of the Committee on the ground that the powers which are given under this Bill are excessive. I wish to put the point of view that the powers given to him are not sufficient. He takes the powers which were given to the Ministry of Health under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, and later we had the Bill to prevent ribbon development. The purpose of that Bill was to prevent the destruction of the British countryside by indiscriminate building. What has happened? The law was passed, but this building along our country roads continues, and from year to year we have seen the progressive destruction—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot discuss the Town and Country Planning Act.

Sir E. Shepperson: On that point I will say no more, but this Clause gives the Minister powers under the Town and Country Planning Act, and I say that so

far those powers have not proved sufficient. I wish to ask whether in future he will have the power to prevent the destruction of the British countryside?

Sir H. Williams: I do hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not prove to be awkward upon this point, because the attitude he is taking up is in complete conflict with his instincts as we saw them expressed when he occupied a position of less responsibility. He has given us a hint that an hon. and learned Member may explain the position from the legal point of view, but I would point out what happens when His Majesty does something in Council. We read in the papers that a Council has been held, and we see a small list of those who were called to this Council and on whose advice His Majesty signed the documents. It is a very ceremonial way of making an Order, but when it has been made then, so far as I know, it cannot be challenged in any court. I think I am right with regard to that. If a mistake has been made, there is no power on earth to correct that mistake. If this were done by Order in Council, then not only would it be published in the "London Gazette," but it would be laid before Parliament. If it were a good Order no one would object and no more would be heard of it. If, on the other hand, a mistake had been made, this court of appeal would be available to correct the mistake. That is all that is asked. It involves very little trouble. Why Departments are so anxious to seize these autocratic powers and take away from us our democratic rights I cannot understand.

Mr. Denman: With great regret, I find myself in complete agreement with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in his contention. I regret it, because I think the Minister should have taken more powers than this Bill gives. If I saw in this Clause a reasonable chance of the fulfilment of the fears which have been expressed by some hon. Members, I should be only too delighted, but I am afraid there is no such chance, although I would add that if there were a chance of adding to the powers I should agree that the additions ought to be in a document that would lie upon the Table of the House and be subject to our criticism. I suggest, however, that it is quite unnecessary that we should go through that formality in this case, because the powers are very


directly limited by the terms of the Bill. They can only do what is necessary or expedient "having regard to any transfer under the Act." That gives no power to modify to such an extent as to create fresh powers.

Mr. Maxton: Did not the hon. Member hear the list, which was read out to us by the Parliamentary Secretary, of previous Acts in which the House had allowed this sort of thing, with its inference that there was no harm in adding just another little bit of legislation on the same lines? The essence of the objection is that Parliament is handing away its own powers. Every time it is asked to do so the statement is made, "It is only a very little thing; it does not matter." That is the point of view which the hon. Member is putting now. But this is going on and going on.

Mr. Denman: I am sorry to differ from my hon. Friend on this point. I should agree with him if there were any question of giving the Department new powers of legislation, new powers of adding to the planning powers already possessed by Departments, but this is merely consequential to what is involved in the transfer. No new power is created.

Mr. Davidson: But if we are not giving them power to make legislation, we are giving them power to repeal legislation which has already been enacted by this House, and surely that is just as important as the power to make legislation.

Mr. Denman: Only in so far as it is consequent upon the transfer—

Mr. Davidson: But who decides that?

Mr. Denman: —and that is why it has seemed to me to be a little pedantic that we should trouble ourselves with so small a point. Let me add that I do not think the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) was correct in saying that an Order in Council cannot be challenged. Such an Order in Council would rest on this Bill—or Act—and if anything is done by the Order in Council which goes beyond the authority given by the Bill then surely a court would declare the Order to be ultra vires.

Sir H. Williams: Does the hon. Member suggest that His Majesty could be haled before one of his own Judges and told that he has done something wrong?

Mr. Denman: I certainly think that His Majesty's advisers could be haled there for putting before him an Order which went beyond the powers authorised under the law. However, we have a responsible legal authority with us and he can say whether my hon. Friend or I am right. As to the undesirability of a limited time, surely it is very undesirable that this process of transfer of property should have to be completed within a defined period. We know that the Commissioners of Works own property all over the world, and the process of transfer may be not only very difficult but also expensive, and I am not sure that it might not be advisable to maintain the Commissioners of Works in permanent existence merely for the purpose of maintaining the various Embassy buildings and other property which they own at present in different parts of the world.

Sir Percy Harris: I must confess that I am a little surprised to find that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, in one of his early appearances in his new capacity, should come with a proposal which is against the whole spirit of his former attitude to these matters. We have looked upon him as rather the champion of Parliamentary control as against the pretentions of the bureaucracy, and I am a little concerned to find that the draftsman has vested in him such very considerable powers, powers which enable him to modify or adapt any Acts or Orders which the late deceased and much-lamented Commissioners of Works have had.
Perhaps it is taking him a bit by surprise to ask, but can he not find some other words which will protect the rights of the House of Commons? The hon. Gentleman who came as his champion reminded us that this late lamented Department had powers all over the world. Its properties were spread about in every foreign country and State, and, I might add, in every Dominion and Crown Colony as well. I suggest that the very fact that the hon. Gentleman has been able to quote precedents to justify his action in putting these words into the Bill makes the case stronger for some modification. We have got into the bad way during the war of rushing things through on the ground of emergency. We have granted powers which in normal times we should not have thought of granting. This


is not a war Measure. It is an important Measure involving important repercussions in our post-war policy. It is one thing to give such powers in a Bill setting up a Ministry of Supply, but quite a different thing in a Bill relating to the reconstruction and planning of the country after the war. We ought to hesitate before putting these words into an Act of Parliament.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I entirely sympathise—if I may express a personal view—with the feelings expressed with regard to the secondary powers of legislation to which hon. Members have drawn attention, but I am rather surprised that they have chosen this provision as an example. If they examined it more closely, I think they would find that the reservation which my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) is so anxious to have is already contained in the words, and that the words have been drawn most carefully in order to secure that the Bill does not go further than the spirit of which the House approves, in addition to the letter. If I understood rightly, the hon. Gentleman asked for an undertaking. I think the undertaking which he wanted—and no doubt he will correct me if I have not got it aright—was that the Minister would not go further than the existing law in any matter which affected the rights of the subject or increased his own powers. Is that right?

Mr. Bossom: indicated assent.

The Solicitor-General: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I thought I had got the substance of what he wanted. The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) has drawn attention several times to the words in paragraph (a) which I expect have been troubling his mind. I would ask my hon. Friends to read it. Note the words:—
repeal, modify or adapt any enactment, order, regulation, scheme, deed, agreement or other instrument.
If the matter stopped there, there might be substance in the various points that have been made, although I am not attempting to adjudicate about it; but there are the further limiting words:
relating to the transferors or their functions or property, to such extent as appears to be necessary or expedient as aforesaid.

Those words relate back to the old machinery which is being transferred, the powers or functions of the Commissioners. Therefore, we start by limiting the repeal or modification to any enactment, etc., relating to the transferors or their functions or property. As I understand it—and again I am prepared to consider any other legal interpretation that can be put forward—there cannot be any such extension of the powers, as has been suggested, because it is first of all limited to the transferors or their functions or property. Having that in mind, you come back to the second limitation contained in the Clause:
His Majesty may, by Order in Council, make such incidental, consequential and supplemental provisions as appear to His Majesty to be necessary or expedient having regard to any transfer effected under this Act.
We are therefore limited, in the first place, to the transferors or their functions or property as they exist, and we are limited, secondly, to making any change which is necessary for the transfer.

Sir H. Williams: I agree with all that, but suppose the officials decided, in common parlance, to chance their arm—they sometimes do so—with their existing powers. Suppose they administer them in a way which is, in fact, illegal. If somebody goes to court and they are challenged, all is well, but suppose somebody puts in something which is an addition to the powers of the transferors, saying, "This is our chance to get this little power," and they put it in. Can it then be challenged in the courts?

The Solicitor-General: I want to be quite frank with regard to challenge in the courts. Since the case of R. v. the Comptroller of Patents, as reported last year, it seems very doubtful whether it can be challenged. The Committee will bear in mind that I am not giving an absolute opinion, because it is very difficult to know whether exactly the same principles apply in regard to different subject matters. I would say, for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), that this is quite a recent view and that the view which he put to the Committee, although it has great authority, is not the view in favour in the court's latest decision. He need, however, feel no regret about having misled the Committee.
I should like to come back to the main point. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) has not met the point which I am seeking to put to the Committee, which is that if you searched for words by which to circumscribe and limit this power, you could not find words more apt or better to make the circumscription and limitation which you wanted. That is the real answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). Let us, by all means, face the fact that a great deal of consequential work has sometimes to be done, such as going through old documents and rolls and so on, in order to bring them up to date. Do we as a House desire that in every case this bringing up to date should be a matter entirely under the discussion and control of a Chamber like this? Do we want to do that, or do we want to say that there are certain fields of activity where we genuinely think there are matters for revision, while we try our hardest to find words which will limit that field of activity so as not to interfere with the liberty of the subject or enlarge the powers of Ministers or officials? I am sorry to have got on to a very general question, but that I think is the best view. As I understand it, the words in the Bill accept the point which I was most careful to note and most anxious should be answered.

Sir H. Williams: My right hon. and learned Friend is making a mountain out of this. He is assuming that these Orders in Council will necessarily be debated, but they will not. All that will happen is that when the Orders have been printed in the "London Gazette"—they are bound to be printed—a copy will come into the possession of the Clerk at the Table, and the fact will be noted in the White Paper which is issued once a week. Then anybody who is interested will have his attention drawn to it and will read it; if he thinks there is anything wrong, then there will be a Debate. If, however, the Government are innocent, there will be no Debate; it is only if they are prospectively guilty that there will be a Debate, and I cannot understand what the objection is.

Mr. Davidson: I tried very hard to follow the argument of my hon. and learned Friend, and while I agree that

there must be considerable sympathy in the Committee for the suggestion that we do not always want to discuss trivial or inconsequential arrangements, the argument cuts both ways. It would not be right for Members of this House to hand over the very important act of repealing or in any large sense modifying or adapting any legislation or enactment that we have passed. But that is exactly what is asked in this Clause. I would like to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that the Measures to which he referred as "minor legislation," such as the London green belt and other local legislation, are not minor legislative enactments at all. They are very important to Members of this House and to the community as a whole. The Government are to-day asking powers that have not been asked for in any previous Bill. For instance, in his own statement the Parliamentary Secretary accepted the Amendment and said he had given an assurance that under no circumstances would anything be done which would in any way seem to be infringing upon the powers of the House, or words to that effect. But that is exactly what Hitler said to the German people when he was asking for powers in Germany. That is exactly what any Minister promises to the House, but all that the ordinary Member has to deal with is the cold print, the Bill as it is placed before us, and the legal interpretation that can be placed upon it. Here it is:
His Majesty may, by Order in Council "—
and I re-emphasise this—
repeal, modify or adapt any enactment, order, regulation, scheme, deed, agreement or other instrument, …
Mark the wideness of the Clause; it covers anything at all that relates to this particular question. I warn my hon. Friends in all parts of the Committee that this would place strong organisations such as the Church Commissioners, who are strong property owners, in a position to bring to bear upon the Government the great influences they have always brought to bear upon them in the past. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, who is well known in legal circles in this and other countries, has himself in many speeches from this side of the House pointed out the great influence of many of these vast property-owning companies and other associations. It is therefore


certainly within the understanding of most hon. Members that the hon. Member opposite should have supported this Clause.

Mr. Denman: I should be exceedingly grateful if the hon. Member would show me any possible connection between this Clause and the work of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I did not suspect that there was any connection at all.

Mr. Davidson: As a result of very considerable experience and study, I have ascertained the fact that the ecclesiastical authorities are—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member may not discuss the work of the ecclesiastical authorities.

Mr. Davidson: I understood that they were very extensive owners of property, and I am therefore suggesting to the Government that they are placing themselves in a very weak position in asking the Members of this House to accept any such proposal. Why cannot they simply accept the Amendment? What does the Amendment ask? It asks that within a reasonable period, whenever the Government make any serious decision—the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) has not asked the Government to bring forward any trivial or inconsequential points, but only serious points involving serious factors, such, for instance, as the complete repeal of a large part of an enactment—that decision should be brought forward to the Members of this House. Surely the Government have confidence in themselves. When they bring forward such a proposal, a short explanatory speech by the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary would suffice for the common sense of the Members, and would also keep the legislation in this particular matter within the orbit of the democracy which we all desire.

The Solicitor-General: The Government are very anxious that there should not be a difference between us" which is really of little substance when we have the same desire animating practically all our minds. Therefore, I have tried, after listening carefully to all the speeches that have been made, to find a formula, which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) suggested, would meet the wishes of the

Committee and especially the point which, as I have said, I do not think is seriously challenged, because the words have been carefully chosen, namely, the question of altering enactments which are already in force. Therefore the course I suggest, if I may mention it now, would be to add another Sub-section (8):
Any Order in Council under this Act repealing, modifying or adapting any enactment shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made:
Provided that no such Order in Council shall be deemed for the purposes of Section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, to be a statutory rule to which that section applies.
The proviso means, as the hon. Member for South Croydon knows, that the additional six weeks' delay and the publication of many hundreds of copies so that public bodies and persons may get a copy if they want it, are avoided. I am sure that none of my hon. friends would desire that that cumbrous machinery should operate in times of stringency like the present. If that appeals to my hon. Friend as a reasonable way of meeting the situation, then I suggest that he might withdraw his present Amendment on the understanding that this Amendment will be moved in due course to take its place—

Dr. Peters: Did I properly understand the Solicitor-General to be limiting his words to "enactment"?

The Solicitor-General: Yes.

Sir R. Tasker: The Solicitor-General, on Sub-section (3), pointed out that the action of His Majesty's Government would be governed by things affected under this Bill. May I point out a previous paragraph which says:
provided that any such powers duties property rights or liabilities conferred, imposed held, enjoyed, or incurred under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, 1939 and 1940 …
That alters the whole situation, because if you look at Clause 6, Sub-section (3), page 4, line 25—

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think the hon. Member is addressing himself to the Amendment. He is addressing himself to the Bill.

Sir R. Tasker: It arose out of the Solicitor-General's explanation; that is all.

Mr. Bossom: On the assurance that has clearly been given to the Committee, I


beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 5, line 6, at the end, add:
(8) Any Order in Council under this Act repealing, modifying or adapting any enactment shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made;
Provided that no such Order in Council shall be deemed for the purposes of Section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, to be a statutory rule to which that Section applies."—[Mr. H. Strauss.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. James Griffiths: I wish to put to the Minister in charge of the Bill a point which has been broached to me and which has occurred to me, too. It has reference to the transfer of powers from the Minister of Health to the new Minister of Works and Planning. The point is that some years ago the Ministry of Health delegated a large part of its powers of administration, so far as Wales is concerned, to the Welsh Board of Health. Included in the powers delegated—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid the point with which the hon. Member is dealing comes under Clause 1 and not this Clause.

Mr. Griffiths: This Clause deals with the transfer of powers.

The Deputy-Chairman: No, Clause 1 does that. This Clause merely concerns the machinery by which it is done.

Sir R. Tasker: I wish to call attention to Sub-section (3). The Solicitor-General explained that the Order in Council would be limited by anything which arose out of the transfer of present powers to the new Minister. If you look at page 3, lines 31 to 35, which precede that Sub-section, it says:
Provided that any such powers duties property rights or liabilities conferred, imposed, held, enjoyed or incurred under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, 1939 and 1940, shall be transferred to the Minister by Orders in Council made under those Acts.
What is there to prevent an Order in Council giving power under the Emergency Powers Acts to empower the Minister to do certain things? These Defence

Regulations make up a huge volume of 400 pages, and in that you find one little paragraph, I think it is 46 (a), which gives unlimited power to the corresponding Minister, namely, the Minister of Works and Buildings. What is there to prevent an Order in Council to give like power to the Minister of Works and Planning? Would the Solicitor-General enlighten the Committee as to that, because if, as I read this, an Order in Council may give power under the Emergency Powers Acts, then the powers of the new Minister will be unlimited.

The Solicitor-General: I think the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker) has really confused two matters with which the Committee was dealing. On the Amendment of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom), we were dealing with Sub-section (3) (a), and with regard to that, I was pointing out, in view of the matters which were exercising the minds of a number of Members, including the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson), the dual limitation that was inherent in subparagraph (a) and the parent Clause. When we come back to the point which my hon. Friend has now raised, you will see that he has in mind the proviso to Sub-section (1). Sub-section (1) sets out that:
the functions, property, rights and liabilities transferred to the Minister under this Act shall be so transferred by such Orders in Council as may from time to time be made by His Majesty for transferring to the Minister, as from such dates as may be specified in the Order,—
—and then sets out the functions, etc. To that general provision there is the special proviso that the powers, duties, property rights, or liabilities conferred under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, 1939 and 1940, shall be transferred to the Minister by Orders in Council made under those Acts. That is, if the Minister gets his powers under the Emergency Powers Act, then the transfer shall take place under those Acts. That is not in any way derogating from the scheme put forward in this Bill, to which the Committee has just added by general concurrence in order to make assurance doubly sure.

Mr. Bossom: Could the Minister give a slight explanation of paragraph (b)? The paragraph is to
provide for the transfer to the Minister of any powers conferred or duties imposed on the Minister of Health by or under any enactment


other than the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, to such extent as appears to be necessary or expedient as aforesaid.
Does that mean that the Minister of Works and Planning has the right to get an Order in Council to take away, or transfer, from the Minister of Health any of these duties or functions, which the Minister of Health does not want to give up? Is the Minister of Health in agreement with these transfers?

Mr. H. Strauss: I am glad that this particular sub-paragraph has been mentioned. It gives me an opportunity of making a slight correction of some previous remarks of mine, to which allusion was made by the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson). I think that such Statutes as the London Squares Preservation Act and the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act fall more naturally under sub-paragraph (b), and not under sub-paragraph (a), with which I was then dealing. Most of the matters dealt with under (a) are the old powers of the Commissioners of Works, although it is possible that there are Statutes—and I do not say that the ones I mentioned may not be among them—which may need to be dealt with both under (a) and (b).
To turn to the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom), it is scarcely necessary for me to assure the Committee that the Government always act with one mind. My hon. Friend will have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is one of those who back the Bill. It would be most improper constitutionally, as I think everybody agrees, if, when the Executive is acting, questions should be asked whether a particular Minister agrees. I need hardly say that my Department acts in these matters in close association with my right hon. Friend's Department. It would be constitutionally improper for the Committee to try to insert any provision saying that particular Ministers should agree to actions of the Government as a whole.

Mr. Davidson: The Minister must be careful of his statements, particularly having regard to the fact that he is at the beginning of his career. He said that the Government always act with one mind. We were very much criticised for making that statement a couple of weeks ago.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. J. Griffiths: Could I again raise a point which I raised at an earlier stage? I want to ask, what is to happen to the powers which, under the Town and Country Planning Act, were delegated by the Minister of Health to the Welsh Board of Health? Is it proposed by the new Ministry to set up some regional organisation, and will these powers be vested in that organisation? Speaking for all my colleagues from the Principality, and for all who are interested in the subject, I want to say that we valued very much the delegation of powers to the Welsh Board of Health. It was a recognition of the entity of Wales, and it certainly led to better administration. I would welcome an assurance that steps will be taken to preserve that small measure of devolution.

Mr. H. Strauss: I am not in a position to give any assurance at this moment, except to say that I am well aware of the importance attached in the Principality to this question. The exact form of our organisation is one on which I would rather not speak until I have had the opportunity of talking to hon. Members like my hon. Friend, from whom I hope to get valuable advice on the position in Wales. We certainly desire to work in the closest association with those who are interested in this matter. I can say—indeed, it is obvious—that our officer in those parts will certainly be a Welsh-speaking gentleman. At the present moment I think it will best meet the wishes of my hon. Friend, as well as the proprieties, if I do not go beyond that, but merely assure him that his suggestion will be considered and that I hope to have a word with him and his colleagues.

Mr. Charles Williams: Of course, I live full support to the Government in their good intentions in this matter; but it seems curious that, at a time when the rest of the community are


doing everything they can to economise labour and to cut down superfluities, the Government set up a new Ministry. When the Government are making such great appeals to the country, they might well refrain from setting up new Ministries of this kind.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to. Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS (MERCANTILE MARINE) [MONEY].

Resolution reported:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Act, 1939, as respects mariners and other seafaring persons, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under schemes made by virtue of the said Act of 1939 which is attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session extending the scope of such schemes.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS (MERCANTILE MARINE) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1—(Additional injuries and damage in respect of which compensation may be paid.)

Petty Officer Alan Herbert: I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, to leave out Sub-section (1).
I do not intend at present to press this Amendment to a division. It depends largely on the answer we receive from the Solicitor-General, whom I am glad to see in his place. I wish to criticise the drafting of this Sub-section; and, therefore, by implication, the drafting of the entire Bill, because this is one of the principal cogs in the complex mechanism of the Bill. I also wish to ask a specific question, arising out of the drafting. Since the Second Reading, when I ventured to make one or two observations on the drafting of the Bill, there has been an interesting correspondence in "The Times" on the subject, and I have had a courteous invitation to visit the Parliamentary Counsel's Department, where I saw two distinguished Parliamentary counsel, including the gentleman who drafted this Bill.
We are all always glad to hear other people's points of view, but, although I must not betray any confidences, I must say that when I left that office my impression was that we had better agree to differ. I find a very great cleavage of opinion between people who think as I do, rightly or wrongly, about the drafting of Bills, and those whose business it is to do the drafting: and it is time that the House of Commons took notice of it.
I want to ask this question: Does this Sub-section apply to a tug operating in waters about Southend which does dangerous and difficult work in dangerous and sometimes stormy waters in connection with convoys? Indeed, the tugs have suffered a good many casualties. The answer to that question ought to be made clear to the Committee.
The present system of drafting legislation by reference is defended by some on the ground that, though it may not be clear to anybody else, it is clear to His Majesty's Judges. My first comment is that His Majesty's Judges are always saying precisely the opposite, that they cannot understand what it is that we have done. And my second comment is that this particular Bill is one which will very rarely, if at all, trouble His Majesty's Judges. Then there are still some old-fashioned and barbarous people who think that legislation should be understood by the people who have to obey it and have to be governed by it. I believe the late Lord Birkenhead once said that the citizen is required to know the law at his peril, while the lawyer, and even the Judge, is forgiven for getting it wrong; indeed, Judges are expected to get it wrong, and that is why we have two Courts of Appeal and sometimes more. I agree that so complex is legislative life that we cannot always make everything understandable to the people—it is absurd to expect it—but that should still be held up as an ideal. In the case of Bills like this, it is said "The Bill may not be understood by the ordinary citizen, but we shall publish a statement showing exactly, in plain language, what the Bill does or does not do." But that is a dangerous thing. Much as we rely upon the honesty and integrity Ministers and Departments, there is a great danger of things being put into such and such a paper or being left out about which we should be none


the wiser in this House because we do not understand the terms of the Bill. In spite of all the difficulties—and I do recognise the difficulties and the patient toils of the draftsmen—we must keep before us the ideal of making legislation intelligible to ordinary people. It is not always a practicable ideal, but we must keep it before us. The idea of having one document in this House and then issuing a completely different document to explain it is a great surrender to unintelligibility.
Then there is a third party which I think is even more important than the Judges who interpret the law and the subject who has to obey it, and that is, the men in both Houses of Parliament who make the law. It is of fundamental importance that we should understand what we are doing while we are doing it. How often do we hear the complaint in the Press, in the courts and on platforms, How in the world did Parliament permit this or that piece of nonsense to go through? "The answer, in nine cases out of ten, is that we did not know what we were doing. We must know what we are doing.
I come back to my specific question. Does this sub-section apply or not to tugs and the crews of tugs operating and assisting convoys off Southend Pier, where the river is five or six miles wide? This question has been put to me seriously by tugmen whom I see every day of my life, but it may equally be put to any other Member. Well I see in Sub-section (1) that Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the principal Act are to apply to mariners, pilots and "other persons," and that the Clause refers to mariner and ships. It does not seem to be likely that "ships" includes "tugs," or that tugs' crews are mariners, but I hope perhaps may come under "other persons." I look at Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the principal Act. Section 3 has nothing to do with tugmen. Section 4 deals with pilots and apprentice-pilots, pilot boats, lightships, lighthouse-tenders and lightship-tenders, and there is nothing about tugmen there, nor does Section 5 seem to apply to tugmen specifically.
But with my quick eye I have noticed, in Sub-section (1), that Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the principal Act have been amended by the subsequent provision of this Bill, and I have another ray of hope that perhaps tugmen are coming into this after

all. I go back to the Statute Book and find that I have to cut out the first 28 lines of Section 3 and paste in 53 new lines which are to be found in sub-section (1) of Clause 2 of this Bill. Having done that operation, I still find nothing about tugs; but still there are a lot of other Amendments to these three Sections. There is a page of consequential Amendments in the Schedule on page 7 of the Bill, which in my opinion is the most untidy piece of drafting that has ever been put before the Committee. I go to the principal Act;—and I protest against things being put to us in this state—and I scribble in physically, as a conscientious Member must do, all sorts of consequential Amendments until my Act looks like a crossword puzzle, which indeed it is. Still, with these alterations I can find nothing which can possibly refer to tugmen off Southend or anywhere else. I go back to the tugman and say, "I am afraid, old boy, you are out of this."
However, I see one last chance. Perhaps a tug is, after all, a ship. I scan through the Bill, and strange enough, although the whole Bill is about ships, there is no definition of a ship in the Bill. I find, in the Schedule to the Bill, that
'Ship' has the same meaning as in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.
I go to the Library, look up the principal Act, and find that a ship "includes any description of vessel used in navigation not propelled by oars." At last I get to a tug. It is wonderful. Southend Water is" tidal waters," and these waters are also a harbour, so that I am very nearly there. Then I think there must be a catch in it, and I wonder if the Solicitor-General could, offhand, give an answer to that. Perhaps, I think, although a tug is a ship and Southend is tidal water, a tugman is not a mariner, and so we start again. With my head going round and round, I look at the principal Act, which says that a mariner means the master or member of the crew of a ship being employed in "sea-going" service. So the poor tugman is caught again, or at least I think so, because Southend, although "on Sea," is within the "seaweed limit" of the Port of London Authority.
I want to get him in, but I am now using him as an illustration of the difficulties in which we are put by this form of legislation. I cannot see why we should undergo this confusion. We should know


what we are doing and not have to go round libraries to find out. I admire the draftsmen, the more so because of their difficulties in war-time, but unlike us, they sit in a room in which there are piles of Statutes and books on case law. When a problem arises they take down one of them and scribble down any point on which they are doubtful, but we humble Members of Parliament have not these facilities, and we ought to be thought about a bit more when these documents are being composed.
What are we to do about it? I am aware that not every case is the same. But in this case we should have started again. We should have said that this is to be the Pensions (Mercantile Marine) Bill, that it applies to the following mariners, to the following vessels, to the following kind of injuries, including the war injuries mentioned in the principal Act, in addition to others which we are adding. I am told that this would have meant a longer Bill, although I am not persuaded about that, but also—and this comes straight from the house's mouth—that it would have taken much less time to prepare by the draftsmen, and that is an important point.

The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member has made a confession which makes me think I am bound to rule this Amendment out of Order. It seems to be an Amendment which would, if carried, negative the whole Bill. I would have been put in some difficulty by the hon. and gallant Member moving an Amendment of which I have had no notice—the hon. and gallant Member is moving to omit Sub-section (1) and not Sub-section (2), as on the Paper—and I doubted very much whether I could find it consistent with my duty to put this Amendment to the Committee at all. I have decided that I cannot. The hon. and gallant Member asked a question which he might have asked on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and I think to that extent I should be entitled to allow a Government representative to make a reply. But I do not think the hon. and gallant Member can continue on the line he is taking now, that is, attacking the Bill generally.

Petty Officer Herbert: I appreciate that, Sir Dennis. My main purpose is to give the Solicitor-General an opportunity

of replying. As the drafting authorities have been so much attacked, I thought he would like an opportunity of giving their side of the case as early as possible. However, I intend to withdraw the Amendment even if you find it in Order.

The Chairman: I am not prepared to put the Amendment to the Committee. I think the hon. and gallant Member had better put his question when we come to the Motion "That the Clause should stand part of the Bill."

Petty Officer Herbert: Shall I withdraw the Amendment now?

The Chairman: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member need do so. I have declined to put it to the Committee.

Petty Officer Herbert: I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, to leave out from "sub-section," to the end of line 25, and to insert "unless the contrary is shown."
I think this Amendment is a point of substance. I mentioned it on the Second Reading, when the Minister said he would give it his attention. I want to leave out the words:
If, but only if, they substantially increased the risk of the peril occurring which caused the injury, loss or damage"—
and I want to insert the words: "unless the contrary is shown." There is probably some explanation, but it seems to me to be a strangely stingy limitation. We start this Bill with the great principle that we are paying pensions for disablement and death directly attributable to war injuries sustained by reason of the service of mariners in British ships. In Clause 1, while on the one hand we expand the definition under the principal Act, we put down certain limiting conditions in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c): and here we seem to limit still more. I cannot understand why the Sub-section is there at all, but if we must have a Sub-section of that kind, we ought to know what it means.
Take, for example, the point mentioned on the Second Reading. A ship is overloaded, or loaded as it would not have been in peace-time, with an unusual cargo, and it founders. That is a peril which causes injury. I am not throwing stones at the Minister; indeed, I hear on every hand of the humane manner in which the Ministry of Pensions Department is administered, but supposing you have somebody who says, "Yes, the ship


foundered, but in such a gale as that it would have foundered anyhow." If there is any dispute, it is left to the widow or her representatives to make a case and prove that it was overloading which substantially increased the risk of the peril occurring instead of the onus of proof being on those who are denying.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I am afraid this Amendment is one which it would be very difficult for me to accept, because it would make such a considerable difference in the procedure and practice as regards all pensions, for it applies not merely to seamen's pensions, but to all others The position is that someone has to decide whether the injury is a war injury or not. At the present time, it is the Minister who decides on the evidence that is brought to him. It may be that it would be a wise thing if we could give the information to the claimants to show that it is not a war injury, but many difficulties would arise. My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that we might not be able to give the information openly because of war conditions. The Admiralty might have something to say if we stated exactly where and how the thing happened, and where certain ships were at certain times. But I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend need have any worries about this matter. He has said that I have the reputation of being an administrator with a humane outlook. That is the outlook of my Department. Time and again we have to deal with cases in the other Services where we have to state that on the evidence produced the injury is not attributable to war service, and the applicants have to accept it. As and when we do set up tribunals, the seamen's widows will have the same right of appealing to the tribunals as the widows of men who were in the other Services. It will then be possible for the information to be given to the tribunals, because then there will be no danger or difficulty resulting from war-time conditions.
I ask the Committee to leave the Clause as it is as regards this matter, because I am certain that the most fair consideration will be given to every case, and in proof of that, I may say that even under the old Act—which we are now amending, and, as my hon. and gallant Friend has himself stated, improving considerably—the percentage of acceptances in the case of widows' claims has been over 95 per cent.

Therefore, I think that the method of leaving it to the discretion of the Minister and the Department-has not worked too badly so far. I submit that it would be in the best interests of those who are claiming that it should be left with the Minister, who will be, I hope, as sympathetic in these matters as I am, and who is open to be criticised in the House if he does not administer the provisions in the proper way.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I was a little worried when I heard the Minister comparing the risks to which merchant seamen are subjected, and the difficulty of assessing whether any risk or loss in which they are involved is due to the war or not, with other classes of war risks.

Sir W. Womersley: I was not doing that. I was saying that the procedure in both cases must be the same.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I understood the Minister to say that if the Amendment were accepted, it would apply not only to cases of merchant seamen, but to all pensions cases.

Sir W. Womersley: I apologise if I did not make myself clear. There is the question of principle involved. This could not apply to one section of applicants for pensions and not to another.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I quite see the point, but I want to plead specially for the particular type of cases covered by the Bill. It seems to me that merchant seamen are subjected to a type of risk which opens out fields of argument, which do not exist in other cases, as to whether a ship has or has not been lost as a result of war activity, or whether it has been lost because of some defect in the ship, or some stress, of weather. I feel there can be no possible doubt about the Minister's sympathetic outlook, and as long as the Department is under his administrative control and as long as the same spirit exists in the Departments, all cases will be dealt with fairly, but I do not think that is quite a fair answer to give on a question of special risks. I am not at all happy about the past history of risks at sea and the difficulties which have been occasioned by questions of how those risks have arisen and how the results of the risks have been dealt with. I should like to see something much more definite


in the Bill in the way of guidance to the courts or the tribunals as regards the special risks which are attached to sea service. I do not think there is sufficient appreciation in any line of the Bill of the special nature of the risks which exist. This is not the only Bill which ignores that fact. I would ask the Minister, to reconsider this matter, and although I quite see that at this moment he might not be able to accept an Amendment of this sort, I should have thought that he might have been able to accept some form of words in some part of the Bill which would outline rather more definitely the nature of the special risks involved.

Mr. Silverman: I am not quite clear how far the statement which the Minister has made clears up a question about which there was some apparent confusion in the Second Reading Debate. In that Debate, there arose a discussion about the way in which the Bill was drafted, and in replying from the Front Bench, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport said that it was done in that way for the convenience of the courts. It occurred, then, to some of us that that could hardly be a valid reason, because it seemed to us that the courts had little or nothing to do with it, and that any questions under the Bill as to entitlement to a pension would be determined not by the courts but by the Minister. That view was expressed in the Debate, and appeared to be doubted by the Treasury Bench. To-day, I understood the Minister to say that the courts in fact will not have to determine entitlement to a pension, but that that will be the business of the Ministry of Pensions, subject only to the right of anyone whose claim is disallowed to have his claim ultimately re-heard if and when tribunals are set up either now or soon after the war.
I should like to know whether that may now be taken to be the considered advice which those in charge of the Measure are tendering to the Committee, and whether we must now assume that all questions of whether claimants to pensions under this Bill are entitled to those pensions, or not entitled to them, will be determined not by the courts but by the Department. Assuming that the answer to that question is in the affirmative, I ask the Minister whether he ought not to reconsider his attitude towards the Amendment now

before the Committee. In most of the cases that we have had to deal with, disputes about pensions have been as to whether there was in fact incapacity or whether in fact the incapacity, alleged or proved, was caused, aggravated, or accentuated by war service. The question that arises here, however, is not that sort of question. The Sub-section which the Amendment proposes to delete does not refer to the claimant or to his interest; it refers to the penalty which has resulted, and lays upon the claimant the onus of establishing that the peril which caused his injury was an added peril—a peril added by war circumstances. That is quite a different thing from the kind of question which so far has been determined by the Ministry of Pensions. Even those questions which have so far been determined by the Ministry have led to very great dissatisfaction, discontent and, indeed, indignation. I am not going to pay anyone any compliments or make any accusations, because I do not think it matters in the least whether the Department is well or badly administered from this point of view. While people whose claims are turned down do not feel that they are getting a proper hearing and impartial determination of their claims, they will not be satisfied, whether or not the Department's administration is fair. The kind of question contemplated by this Amendment is not this question at all.

The Chairman: I am not sure that the hon. Member is in Order in discussing this matter of whether the decision rests with the courts or with the Department.

Mr. Silverman: I fully understand that. I am not attempting to discuss it. I was only attempting to draw a distinction between the kind of question raised in the words now proposed to be left out, and the kind of questions which so far the Ministry of Pensions have been left to determine. I am only saying that this kind of question covered by the words which the Amendment proposes to leave out is not a proper question to be determined by the Ministry. It would be very much better not to raise such a question at all. It is a question which will be extremely difficult to answer. If it has to be decided, I should have thought it was pre-eminently the kind of question with which a court and not a Government Department ought to deal. Even so, it would raise very difficult and complicated


questions of law in an atmosphere which the Minister has already explained might not be conducive to the public interest. I suggest to him that it would be very much better to accept the Amendment which has been moved, and not subject these claimants to any kind of limitation. If the injury has, in fact, resulted in any of the circumstances in the Section referred to, there ought not to be any necessity to limit or qualify it by saying:
if, but only if, they substantially increase the risk of the peril occurring which caused the injury, loss or damage,
which takes you into the rarified atmosphere. If a ship is a total loss, the evidence may have been completely destroyed, and, as the Clause stands, in circumstances of that kind the question will be determined by the Department itself without hearing evidence and without making any communication to the claimants or dependants of the claimant. It is bound, if it is persisted in, to give rise to the same kind of feeling, with even greater justification, as has been occasioned by Departmental decisions of this kind on questions in the past. It seems that if the Amendment were accepted, the advantages of accepting it are obvious, and that the disadvantages which would result to the Government or anyone else would be very difficult to discover, and I hope that the Government will reconsider their attitude.

Mr. Beechraan: It may well be, if the subject matter of this Bill continues to be dealt with by a Minister with a humane outlook and by a Department which treats these matters with sympathy, that no great damage will result from adhering to the words contained in the Bill. I am, however, bound to say, having listened to the arguments, that I feel that the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford University (Petty-Officer Herbert) should be supported. The Minister, in asking the Committee to keep to the words proposed, advanced two arguments. First of all, he said that we had to bear in mind the analogy of other Bills, and, secondly, he tells us that the question of secrecy may arise. I think that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) has dealt very faithfully indeed with the question of analogy. I am not at all convinced that we are here dealing with the same kind of material as is dealt with

in other cases where this type of matter is considered. I cannot follow how the argument in regard to secrecy affects the matter. The Minister said that it might be very inconvenient from the national point of view to have to disclose to an applicant certain facts which, I suppose, help to determine whether, "Yes" or "No," the injury was substantially increased in regard to the risk which brought it about. How can it be said that secrecy is of the least relevance when, as the Minister told us, the applicant can go before a tribunal and make out his case, in which case the facts will have to be open to the tribunal and the tribunal will have to consider whether the risk has, in fact, been substantially increased for the reasons stated? It is quite impossible for any tribunal, be it a Department or a court, to reach a decision if the facts are not fully open to them.
I ask the Committee seriously to consider this matter and to accept what has been put before them by myself and other hon. Members to the effect that the arguments advanced against my hon. and gallant Friend's proposal really cannot hold the field. I think that it would be far more easy and far more businesslike to have the matters dealt with on the footing of the Amendment now proposed, A tribunal will be able to say whether arguments have been put forward to show that the injury cannot be attributed to the causes mentioned, but it is very difficult for a fribunal to say whether a risk has been substantially increased by certain pre-disposing causes. Various tribunals will be bound to differ as to whether there has been this substantial increase, and I, therefore, ask the Minister to reconsider this matter.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I think it is essential that in making up our minds on this matter we should commence by remembering that Clause 1, Sub-section (2), paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) enlarge the scope of the injuries for which pensions can be given, and that that meets with the general approval of us all. There is no dispute on that point, and we all welcome it. Then we come to consider Sub-section (3), and where I suggest that there is a difference between us is that my hon. and gallant Friend and those who have supported him consider that it is a limiting Sub-section. Actually, it is a further extending Sub-section.


"Attributable" is a word which is roughly equivalent to "caused by." I do not know how far my hon. and gallant Friend, in bringing out the law reports which bear his name, has gone into the question of causation. But I think he Will understand, and I know the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) understands, the great refinements which the problem of causation engendered about 10 years ago. There were disputes on very narrow lines between what was a proximate cause and what was a real cause, and matters of that kind. Therefore we desired to substitute a criterion which seemed to us reasonably construable and the subject of an easy decision. We said injuries should be treated as being attributable if, and only if, the matter in question substantially increased the risk of the peril occurring which caused the injury, loss or damage. "Substantially" is not a word which causes any difficulty. It is a matter which the courts have often had to construe in various Statutes, so that, as far as any legal implications of the word are concerned, there are no difficulties.
As far as a question of fact is concerned, that again must be a matter of opinion. I should like to take the three examples my hon. and gallant Friend mentioned. The first was overloading plus a gale. The question for the decision of the Minister is, Did the overloading substantially increase the risk? There is, to my mind, a question of fact—and all questions of fact require consideration and attention, and cause some difficulty—but not a matter which one would ever describe in any technical way as a difficult question of fact. The second question was absence of light. Did the light substantially increase the risk? That is not a question which anybody would feel difficulty about deciding, providing he applied his mind to the facts. The third was a convoy plus a wrong order. Again the question is, Did sailing in convoy substantially increase the risk? I agree that that is a difficulty, but a difficulty which is inherent in every Admiralty case of deciding whether it is reasonable to give a particular order or not. We have genuinely tried to find a formula which gets' rid of the difficulties and refinements of causation, and substitute for it a matter which can be dealt with as a question of fact by the Minister

without difficulty. My hon. and gallant Friend desires to wipe that out and put in its place "unless the contrary is shown." It is rather difficult for the moment to imagine who is showing the contrary. If one follows it up logically, it comes to this position, that, if you have no evidence at all, you should grant a pension.

Petty Officer Herbert: All you may know about it is that the ship foundered. The case goes to a tribunal, and a substantial increase of risk through overloading has to be proved. I raised the point on Second Reading, and the hon. and learned Gentleman said he would go into it. I thought he meant that he would provide some other form of words if mine were not right. I wanted the onus of proof put upon the Ministry. I think that where a ship is overloaded the benefit of the doubt ought to go to the widow.

The Solicitor-General: I was not endeavouring to evade the point. My right hon. Friend and I have considered this most carefully since the Second Reading. It has not been forgotten. In the case that my hon. and gallant Friend gave, you had the evidence of overloading. My right hon. Friend can decide on that evidence, and on the general information that he has, whether that substantially increased the risk. The case that I want my hon. and gallant Friend to consider is this: A ship sails and is never heard of again, and there is no evidence of enemy submarines or aircraft operating in the neighbourhood. If the Amendment were accepted, there would be literally no evidence whatever of any war risk. What the Committee has to decide is whether it is right, in granting a pension, to ask that there should be some evidence, as we say, a lighter onus than in the case of an ordinary claimant, who has to prove definite causation, and eliminate any other cases which may operate in the matter. We suggest, instead of that, that there should be placed on the claimant the lighter onus of saying that war matters have substantially increased the risk, and that is a fairer and better method of dealing with the problem than saying, If there is no evidence at all we shall make the assumption that it is a war injury. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne knows as well as I do the many hundreds of decisions in the courts in cases of workmen's compensation. I am suggesting


that what we should require is some evidence of war experiences being present and that if there is some evidence, then we have propounded a good test.

Mr. Silverman: I think that in the closing sentence of my hon. and learned Friend's speech we get to the crux of the matter. He referred me to the multitude of decisions under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, and very tragic decisions many of them are. If this House is to take the responsibility of saying, as it has done in previous analogous Acts and as it does in this Bill, that even such rights as a man might have under the Workmen's Compensation Act are to be taken away and his case is to be decided by the Department, then, even if we agree to that, there is no reason why all the anomalies of the workmen's compensation law should be repeated. Let me take the sort of case that the Mover of the Amendment has suggested. A ship is lost with all hands and is never heard of again. My hon. and learned Friend says that in that case a lighter onus will be put on the claimant. To the claimant, however, it makes no difference whether the onus put upon her is light or heavy if she has no means of discharging it. In these circumstances she has no means of discharging even the lightest of onuses.
All we are asking is that in circumstances where the Government control every ship that sails, what the cargo shall be, where it shall be loaded and whither it shall sail, the Government ought not to quibble about proofs and onuses if such a ship is lost. They ought to say, "This ship was sailing for us to satisfy war purposes and its loss is a war loss. We will, therefore, pay the pension and not go into refinements as to whether this or the other unprovable circumstance has substantially increased the risk." My hon. and learned Friend said that this is not a limiting modification but an extending one. He might have made a case for that if the words "but only" had been left out. I may be wrong about that and I do not press it. I prefer to stand on the general principle that in circumstances where proof is necessarily unobtainable by the widow or the dependants of a mariner, where such evidence as there is is in the possession of the Government, and where the Government insists on treating it as a Departmental decision without recourse to the courts,

the fact of the loss on a war voyage ought to be sufficient entitlement to pension.

Mr. Pickthorn: I apologise to the Committee if I have not sufficiently understood this discussion to take part in it. I hope I have, but I am not sure that I have. I wish to put a point in the form of the story of a case which arose in the last war. Five ships on Government account were proceeding from Liverpool to Boston, Massachusetts, all less well officered, less well manned and less well repaired than they would have been in normal circumstances. They ran into weather of exceptional severity about 400 miles East of the American coast. Four of them foundered. The fifth was a turret ship, a ship which was designed to cheat the Suez Canal dues, and was unsuitable for western ocean traffic. It was, however, the only ship which reached Boston. About 20 minutes after she tied up the master died. The question I wish to put is, which widow of which of these masters would have had what chances after discharge of the onus of getting any pension under this Bill? Would none of them or would it only be the fifth, because it is obvious there could be no evidence in the other cases of what happened towards the end? In the fifth case there might be a theoretical possibility of getting evidence, but the practical possibility was so infinitesimal that, however light the burden of proof might be, it would not be dischargeable.

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Gripps): I think that there is a little confusion about what this enactment is really about. In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), I think it is undoubtedly the answer that under this Bill none of the widows of these officers would get any pension. They would all have had to look, as they look now for pensions under the compensation schemes. That has ruled in the Service for a long time, but the people who are asking for this Amendment are asking that the whole of workmen's compensation should be wiped out, and that the whole of compensation should be taken over by the Government. What this Clause does is to draw the line between cases which fall within workmen's compensation and cases which fall outside because of war risks. This is not a question, as the hon. Member for


Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) suggested, of introducing into this pensions system all the difficulties of workmen's compensation cases. It will be observed that it is not a question here as to whether the injury or loss has been caused by a war risk, but whether it is attributable to something—that is, the matters specified—and whether those matters have substantially increased the risk of the peril, not of the accident. In the case which the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment put forward of the overloading as a matter of war necessity, that is clearly a thing which increased the risk. It may not have been the cause of the accident, but it increased the risk of the accident. If there were an absence of lights or the presence of enemy submarines or a convoy where otherwise there would not have been a convoy, these are matters which would substantially increase the risk of the peril. It is not a question of whether they caused the accident.

Mr. Pickthorn: What is the risk of the peril?

Sir S. Cripps: I should have thought that it was fairly clear. In the case which the hon. Gentleman gave the fact that the ships were not well founded increased the risk of the peril of the storm because it made them more likely to be sunk in the storm than if they were well founded. That is a case in which something increased the risk of the peril. Peril is something which exists by nature. It may be a rock or a storm or something of that kind. The risk of the peril may depend upon the state of the boat, upon the way in which it is navigated, or upon a hundred other matters, and if in accordance with the provisions in Sub-section (2) there is something which substantially increases the risk of the peril and then, as a result of the peril, there is an accident or loss of life, the pension becomes due; but if there is no substantial increase of the peril, and it is an ordinary peril which is covered under the provisions with regard to workmen's compensation or compensation to officers, then the case falls to be dealt with under those ordinary provisions. It is essential that a line must be drawn, and in my submission this Sub-section draws the line as fairly as possible and has put as small an onus as possible upon the person who has to claim the pension. It is not a question of proving that the loss

or the accident was due to this extra incident; he has only to show that there was an incident present which increased the risk from the peril, and that cannot be as difficult a matter to prove as some hon. Members have suggested.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I do not like to interrupt again, but I still feel that my right hon. and learned Friend has attempted to put too narrow a limit upon the nature of the risks of ships at sea in time of war. Practically every ship that goes to sea has, under the stress of turning at high speed, an extra risk added to the perils of which he spoke. It may well be that a type of ship which would not be sent on a particular voyage in peace-time is sent in war-time. How can one say whether there has been additional risk of peril because that particular type of ship has been sent on that voyage? Again, the ship may have been pressed to go to sea at the earliest possible moment and that may have caused the gear aloft to be improperly stowed, and the actual behaviour of the ship, being an unsuitable type of ship, may have caused a chafing of tackle aloft and may have brought down that gear at sea and so caused an accident. All those are questions which admit of unlimited argument, and it is only because I see the risk of unlimited argument holding up claims which could' be substantiated if all the evidence were available to those who were making the claims that I once again ask whether this matter can be reconsidered.

Petty Officer Herbert: While I am grateful to the Leader of the House for what he has said, may I ask him to make this point clear? If the whole of this Sub-section were omitted—and that was the purpose of the Amendment which I had originally put down—what would be the effect? Would it substantially increase the risk of the Bill not going through?

Sir S. Cripps: The effect would be to make it extremely hard upon applicants.

Amendment negatived.

Petty Officer Herbert: I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, at the end, to insert:
(4) Any injury, loss, or damage sustained by a mariner by reason of his service in a British ship in time of war shall be treated as falling within this section, although not falling within subsection (2), or section ten of the principal Act, where no compensation or damages is or are payable at common law or under any enactment.


The purpose of this Amendment is to fill in a gap in the Bill, or possibly two gaps. On the Second Reading of the Bill I pointed out some of the cases of misfortune which, so far as I could see, were not covered by the Bill. I mentioned the case of a man going overboard in the ordinary way, so to speak, while in convoy to the North of Norway or somewhere else. I was told then in a series of interjections by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) that in such a case the man would get workmen's compensation, and that is perfectly true; though, by the way, the benefits under this Bill are much better than those under workmen's compensation legislation. They are pensions, for example, and not lump sums.
There are two points with which I wish to deal, and the first concerns officers. Officers receiving over, is it £420 a year, are not entitled to workmen's compensation benefits. But I have just learned from Captain Coombs, of the Officers (Merchant Navy) Federation, something which ought to be made more widely known, that shipowners' associations are paying workmen's compensation ex gratia to officers who are not legally within the limits of those entitled to compensation. Their action in that respect deserves to be properly applauded, but still it is an ex gratia action, and it is questionable whether Parliament ought to rely upon shipowners being generous to that extent. Therefore, I suggest that where there is no statutory pension payable under this Bill this saving clause should be operative in case there are any real gaps.
The other point which I wish to make concerns both officers and men. It deals with tuberculosis brought about by exposure in ships' boats after a vessel has been sunk or has had to be abandoned. I imagine that my right hon. Friend has an answer to this point, but I should like to read a letter from Captain Coombs, of the Officers (Merchant Navy) Federation:
As you will be aware, under the principal Act disability allowances were limited to injuries received as a direct result of enemy action in accordance with the definition given in the Act, and consequently cases of tuberculosis which, in our view, could be directly attributed to warlike actions could not be admitted by the Department. Undoubedly there have been a number of cases, possibly more than we are aware of where tuberculosis

has developed as a result of privations suffered by crews who have had extended periods in ships' lifeboats following upon the sinking of their ships by enemy action. Whether it would be possible to have it specifically covered in the Amending Act, for tuberculosis to be regarded as a war injury we have some doubt, as the Act defines war injuries and tuberculosis is an illness. We do feel nevertheless that it will be the intention of the Ministry of Pensions, having regard to the wide interpretation which they have placed on war injuries"—
Another compliment to the Ministry—
to pay pensions to those people in the Merchant Navy who are incapacitated by one reason or another as a result of warlike actions whilst following their employment. … If tuberculosis is not covered by the amending legislation it will not be possible, in my view, to have claims of this character admitted under the Workmen's Compensation Act, as-there is not at present any scheduled seamen's diseases under that Act.
Those are the two points. First: whether we can rely upon the present practice in the case of officers who suffer an injury such as is provided for in the Bill; and second, to make provision for sufferers from tuberculosis or any similar disease which does not come under workmen's compensation or under the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Rhys Davies: This Bill applies only to physical injuries. I know little or nothing about ships or the sea, but I know something about this problem of the Minister accepting responsibility for pensions in respect of physical injuries only. The Minister knows that there are many cases of neurosis already in existence consequent upon bombing from the air which do not fall into the category of physical injury but are nevertheless as distressing, if not more so. Tuberculosis as suggested may of course arise consequent upon enemy action but it is much more remote than the point which I am raising, since I have actually dealt with neurosis cases, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.
Let us see what would happen under this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman will consider a claim for pension from one of these men in respect of injury caused to him physically, but it is quite possible that one of these mariners may be injured for life with disturbance of his brain or nerves. Let me give an actual case of neurosis under the Civilian Injuries Scheme, which will bring the point out better than I can put it. There was a young man in the Navy doing shore duty. Although I have raised


this question before, it is appropriate on this Amendment. He was picking up incendiary bombs, as was part of his duty, during a blitz upon a seaport town, when, lo and behold, a high explosive bomb exploded near to him. He was carried to hospital and was there for several weeks. During that period he suffered an epileptic fit. He had never suffered from any ailment since he joined his approved society at 16 years of age. When he was discharged from the Navy he was certified as an epileptic, and because he was discharged as an epileptic and had not suffered any physical injury as such, the right hon. Gentleman will not grant him a pension.
Let us be clear about the matter. I am not going out of my way to condemn the Ministry of Pensions; I know something of the difficulties. They draw a line, however, and they draw it here. Notice the wording:
The injuries falling within this Section are physical injuries.
Let me ask the Committee to consider the matter more in detail. A sailor may suffer exposure on the high seas, probably on a raft for several days, and he may become mentally deranged, probably for life. So far as I know, there is no pension payable under this Bill for that case. Where a man is discharged from the Forces with mental disturbance, the right hon. Gentleman has declined to pay a pension, though he provides treatment.

Sir W. Womersley: That is where it can be positively proved that the disturbance has nothing to do with his service. The hon. Gentleman is quoting cases where men, from exposure or bomb blast, become affected. We should deal with such cases on their merits. The hon. Gentleman keeps bringing forward a particular case on every Debate we have, although he knows that we have discussed together downstairs the particular case he has in mind. We have seen all the papers and he must admit that it has nothing to do with the general question but has to be dealt with according to the merits of the case.

Mr. Davies: Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman a question pointedly. Suppose a sailor suffers from neurosis consequent upon enemy action. It is not sufficient for the right hon. Gentleman to say, "I will deal with the case." I

know he will deal with it, but he does not accept responsibility for a pension under the personal injuries scheme for neurosis cases, but only as stated in the First Clause of this Bill, for physical injuries. I am not so sure that the minister would be entitled to accept responsibility for a pension in respect of anything but physical injury. Where physical injury causes neurosis he will, of course, pay a pension. I ask him flatly to say, in the case of a man such as I have described, suffering from neurosis without physical injury, consequent upon enemy action, whether he would not only deal with the case but whether the man would be entitled to a pension. That is the real problem here.

Sir W. Womersley: The answer is quite definite. We should deal with the case in exactly the same way as we deal with all cases of neurosis. First of all, we should give treatment, which is the method recommended by all the specialists in the country—treatment first. If we could not bring the person back to health, then we pension him. There is no question about it.

Mr. Silverman: I want to come back to the general question raised by the Amendment. In view of the discussion, I would like to ask the Government to explain to the Committee whether they recommend the Bill to the House on the ground that it provides better benefits than would be obtainable under workmen's compensation, or on the ground that it offers something less. I am sorry that the Leader of the House is not here; it was a speech of his which prompted the thought in my mind. In one part of his argument he was saying that we should not pass the Amendment because it would deprive everybody of workmen's compensation and in another part that this gave something more than workmen's compensation, and therefore the onus was made light. He seemed to be trying to make the best of both worlds. When it suited his argument to say that workmen's compensation was better, he said that; and when it suited to say that this was better than workmen's compensation, he advanced that argument. The matter ought to be cleared up, and one way of doing so would be to pass the present Amendment which deals with a class of case to which that particular kind of argument does not apply.
Not everybody who suffers injury to be compensated by a pension under the Bill would have a right to workmen's compensation. His wages might be too high, or there might be no contract of service of any kind. He might be present in the ship in some quite other capacity than that of master and servant. If he were injured and if his wages were too high for workmen's compensation, it would be no answer to him or his dependants to say: "If you fail under this Act you may get what you would have got under workmen's compensation," because, ex hypothesi, what he would have got under workmen's compensation would be nothing. Therefore, it seems necessary, especially in view of the argument advanced to us on the previous Amendment, to make it clear that if there be someone who suffers injury by this kind of peril, without the Bill he may get neither pension nor compensation while under the Bill he will get compensation. I take that to be the object of the Amendment, and it is so very reasonable and obvious that I hope the Government will be able to accept it.

The Solicitor-General: Let me deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) with regard to injury. I think it was suggested by him and developed by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken The position is that if the tuberculosis or the neurosis is an injury within Clause 1 of the Bill, as it extends the original Act, and the tuberculosis or the neurosis is therefore the result of one of the matters described, it is the subject of compensation, or, if death were to result, pension under the Bill.

Mr. Rhys Davies: May I interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman? I know that if a person is physically injured, and suffers from neurosis consequent upon physical injuries, he is entitled to and generally gets a pension, but the vast majority of cases are of neurosis without physical injury, and those are the cases I am troubled about.

The Solicitor-General: I would like to assure my hon. Friend that this is a matter with which those of us who have had to deal largely with workmen's compensation are extremely familiar. It has been decided, in cases of neuresthenia or neurosis which supervene from an accident without any physical injury, that if the chain of causation is right and it is

established that the neurosis is the result of the accident, the workman gets the compensation, although he may have suffered no physical injury at all. Similarly here, if a mariner is suffering from neurosis as a result of the war experiences now included, he will be entitled to his compensation. Also in regard to tuberculosis; if it is the result of exposure sustained as a result of one of these sets of war circumstances, he will be entitled to a pension.

Petty Officer Herbert: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean that tuberculosis is included in the definition of physical injuries?

The Solicitor-General: If caused as a result of enemy action, yes.

Sir W. Womersley: Perhaps I can put that right. Everybody is anxious to get everything he thinks about into the Bill, and although unfortunately we cannot do that, my hon. and gallant Friend can have the assurance that tuberculosis is so regarded if it is due to war injury or anything of that kind.

The Solicitor-General: That explains the first point which was troubling both my hon. Friends.

Mr. Ammon: But can a neurosis be described as a physical injury?

The Solicitor-General: If my hon. Friend will go with me afterwards, I will show him how that matter was dealt with under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I think that all his colleagues who have had to deal with compensation cases from the trade union point of view, as I have had to deal with them a stage or two further on, will see that there is no difficulty. It is a physical injury. It has even been tested in the courts and established that it is a physical injury for somebody to suffer a shock from seeing someone else have an accident. It is perfectly clearly established, and there can be no getting away from that point.
Now I come to what I think is the more difficult suggestion with regard to those who are over the Workmen's Compensation Act limit. The feeling that the Government have is this. This Bill is designed to give compensation for war injuries, that is, injuries sustained in circumstances


in which there is a war risk. We have endeavoured to evolve the best definition that we can, and the best possible test, for deciding whether war conditions are to be taken as being responsible—that is a matter with which I have already dealt a short time ago—for the risk or for a substantial increase of the risk. I would ask my hon. Friend to consider this. It seems to me that it is logically right to say that having fixed a criterion or a test as to whether it results from war matters or not, you cannot suddenly change your mind, and say that the test is whether the man will get compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act or the common law. The answer to that would be, if the Workmen's Compensation Act or common law limitations do not suit you, you must change them. I ask my hon. Friend to accept it on that basis. We feel that it is necessary to find the best test for deciding whether it is a war injury or not, and having decided on what is the best test, we must abide by it. While we sympathise, and must sympathise, with those cases—which I hope will be comparatively few—in which it is impossible to show that any war matter has substantially increased the risk and where the persons concerned are outside any other compensation, we must stand by the principle of the Bill before the House, which is to extend the rights in relation to war injuries, but only in relation to war injuries.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, may I point out to him that this is a very important matter, especially in relation to neurosis, because we are having the greatest possible trouble in regard to the Army? Where soldiers have shell shock we are finding that the Ministry of Pensions is taking a different line altogether from that which was taken in the last war.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): The hon. Member must not discuss the administration of the Ministry of Pensions on this Bill. We are dealing with mariners.

Mr. Taylor: Yes, I want to deal with mariners, but I want an assurance that neurosis will be for mariners a clearer title to compensation than it is for soldiers. In regard to workmen's compensation, there

has been some difficulty. There has been some tendency in late years to bring it in that men were suffering from neurosis instead of nystagmus and debar them from compensation. I therefore want us to have a clear statement that neurosis will be a title to compensation for mariners.

Mr. Silverman: I would like to ask whether the hon. and learned Gentleman does not think that the argument he has just addressed to the mover of the Amendment does not prove conclusively how unfair it is that this matter should be left in its present unsatisfactory position. He asks us to agree that, if there are hard cases, we may be very sorry and view them with every sympathy, but that we are not to do anything about it because we have to draw a line between workmen's compensation and pensions, and, having drawn it, we must stick to it. That was the general argument. But does he not recall that the Leader of the House, on the previous Amendment, when we were saying that this puts too difficult an onus upon the applicant, told us that if we did what we wished, we should lose the workmen's compensation rights which the applicant would otherwise have? Having recommended us not to persist in the previous Amendment because if we did we should take away somebody's rights, is it not now unfair to go on to say that, having accepted that line of division in order to protect somebody else, we should now fail to take a step to protect somebody who suffered from that very decision? I do not know whether I am making myself very clear, but I think the argument, if people will take the trouble to look at it, is this. Here you have a class of people who are going to suffer from a war peril. The learned Solicitor-General says that he cannot do anything about that because we have chosen a line as to what is workmen's compensation and what is not, but we only accepted that line in order to preserve somebody's workmen's compensation rights, and we are dealing in this Amendment with people who have no workmen's compensation rights.
What possible harm could be done if the Government were to say, "Here you have somebody who has no claim against the owner, who has no claim against us at present. If he suffers death as a result of war service, his widow and children will be deprived of their source of livelihood by reason of a war peril which it is


the general purpose of this Bill to provide pensions for. As there is such a case never mind the anomalies and the strict definitions. Here is an injury which will be suffered by reason of war circumstances, by reason of war service. If you can only deal with that injustice by accepting this Amendment, surely you ought to accept it, and if you cannot accept it either by reason of the way in which it is drafted, or for some other reason that seems good to you, surely you ought not to be content to say, "It is a hard case, but you must put up with it." The onus is upon the Government, to find some way of compensating or pensioning cases of this kind. I am quite sure that my hon. Friend does not mind which way it is done, either in the way suggested in the Amendment or by some other method. Obviously he has made out a case for people who suffer through war service and get neither compensation from the owners under the Workmen's Compensation Acts nor any pension under this Bill. They are to be left out in the cold. Unless there is some good reason why they ought to be left out, it is the business of the Government to find some method of bringing them in.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee proceeded to a Division, but there being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the Ayes, The CHAIRMAN declared that the Noes had it.

Mr. Silverman: On a point of Order. Am I mistaken in thinking that the time for putting in Tellers on these occasions is after the second call?

The Deputy-Chairman: The Tellers have to be put in before the second call.

Sir W. Womersley: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 27 to 30.
This is merely a drafting Amendment, as regards definition, under Clause 1. Later on I shall move, in relation to salvage workers, an Amendment on the Order Paper which gives a clear definition of "harbour" and "tidal water."

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 33, leave out from the second "ships," to the end of line 35.—[Sir W. Womersley.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Admiral of the Fleet Sir Roger Keyes: I wish to ask the Minister whether, if a small vessel is lost by bombing attack in harbour, and the owner cannot get compensation from the Board of Trade because she is a seagoing vessel, is there to be compensation under this Bill?

Sir W. Womersley: I am afraid I shall not be able to answer every point about every position that may arise. I shall have to look into that and let my hon. and gallant Friend have an answer.

Sir R. Keyes: I sent in a Question to the Minister of War Transport several days ago.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): I must apologise to my hon. and gallant Friend, but it never reached me. If he will be good enough to write to me, I will go into the matter. The letter may have been sent to the Board of Trade.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: I think it is rather unfortunate that the Minister is not able to put in this Clause something in addition to the question of physical injuries, because there is no question that this does affect a large number of men.

The Deputy-Chairman: We have just discussed and decided that matter. We cannot re-discuss it.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: On the Question: "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," is it not competent to make some observations on certain parts of the Clause? I notice that the Clause deals with physical injuries. There are other sorts, not physical but at the same time very crippling, which come within the scope of pensions.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is the point we discussed, and we cannot re-discuss it.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and' agreed to.

Clauses 2, 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5—(Consequential extension of s. 3 of 2 & 3 Geo. 6. c. 82.)

Petty Officer Herbert: I beg to move, in page 5, line 38, to leave out "could be," and to insert "has been."
It may be only my suspicious mind, but the picture here is that the man has surrendered his rights and the shipowners are released from their liabilities under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and it is understood that the man will get a war pension under this Bill. That is to say, he may get a pension. It may be only my suspiciousness, but I should like to know why the words "has been" should not be substituted, so as to provide that a man shall not surrender his rights until he has actually been awarded a pension under the Bill.

The Solicitor-General: My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that we have to try to base this Bill on the principle which is contained in Clause 3 of the original Personal Injuries Act, which gives relief if the injury has been caused by war matters. Therefore, in this case we have to bear in mind that there is a limit to the class of persons—that is, it includes only mariners who are employed—and a limit, under one of the Sub-sections we have just passed, to the circumstances. As to whether the claimant is within the class of persons, and whether the circumstances come under the appropriate Sub-section, that is a matter which in all cases the Minister decides. Even if a claim for compensation comes before the court, and the matters are raised by the defence, these two matters are still matters for the certificate of the Minister. We had to decide whether the proper test was whether they had been given compensation or they could be given compensation. It seemed to us that the proper test was whether they could be given compensation. I do not think it was suggested on the Second Reading by anyone that a person should be given the option of saying, "I do not want any payment under the Bill; I wish to refuse that and take my common law rights." Let me give an example that often occurs. Take the case of a woman who has been left a widow at an early age. In the ordinary circumstances, she contemplates that she may at some time marry again. It would be much more convenient to her to have a lump sum which she would receive at common law than to have a succession of payments according

to the passage of time and to her needs. My hon. and gallant Friend knows that we have to consider the totality of cases as nearly as we can in order to reach a decision. It seemed to us that the proper test was not actual receipt of the money, but whether the claimant was in a position to have received it. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that the position has been considered very fully.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Short title and interpretation.)

Sir W. Womersley: I beg to move, in page 6, line 14, at the end, to insert:
() In this Act the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say—
harbour" means any harbour, whether natural or artificial, and any port, dock, haven, estuary, tidal or other river, canal or inland navigation to which sea-going ships have access;
salvage" means the preservation or recovery of vessels wrecked, stranded or in distress, or their cargo or apparel, or the recovery of any other property from the water and includes the removal of wrecks, and "salvage operations" and "salvage purposes" shall be construed accordingly;
tidal water "means any part of the sea, and any part of a river within the ebb and flow of the tide at ordinary spring tides and not being a harbour.

This Amendent contains a definition of harbour and tidal water. That is to meet the wishes of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert), who suggested that, instead of referring to another Act, we should reprint the definition in the Bill. This Amendment repeats the definition in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, thereby saving my hon. and gallant Friend and a great many other people the trouble of looking up the Merchant Shipping Act. I have inserted the definition of salvage so that I can deal a little later with salvage workers. It will clear the air as to what their position really is.

Petty Officer Herbert: I thank my right hon. Friend very much for seeing the light as much as he has done. But this raises a question of the order of procedure. I now hope that my new Clause, which is for the same purpose of tidying up the definitions, will be accepted.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member had better wait until his new Clause is called.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Persons engaged in salvage operations.)

(1) Section four of the principal Act shall apply to such salvage workers as are specified in subsection (2) of this section; and for the purposes of the said section four such a salvage worker shall be deemed to have sustained an injury, or to have been detained, by reason of his service if he sustained the injury, or if the capture in consequence of which the detention occurs was effected:

(a) while he was engaged in salvage operations taking place either at sea or in any tidal water or harbour outside the British Islands;
(b) while he was on leave at a place outside the British Islands during the carrying on of such salvage operations in which he was engaged;
(c) while he was at any place, except on land in the British Islands, in the course of proceeding to or returning from engagement in such salvage operations;
(d) while he was waiting at any place outside the British Islands to proceed or return as aforesaid, whether the delay was due to sickness or to any other cause outside his control.

(2) The salvage workers hereinbefore referred to are any person, other than a member of His Majesty's naval forces, who, not being the master or a member of the crew of a ship, is regularly employed in salvage operations in or from the British Islands.

(3) The cases in which a scheme made under subsection (1) of section six of the principal Act may provide for compensation to persons to whom section four of that Act applies as salvage workers for war damage to their effects are where the damage occurred in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (a), paragraph (b), paragraph (c), or paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of this section, and paragraph (b) of the said subsection (1) of section six shall be construed accordingly.

(4) In relation to such a salvage worker as is mentioned in subsection (2) of this section, or to the master or a member of the crew of a ship regularly employed, or chartered for the purpose of being employed, in salvage operations, the reference in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section one of this Act to measures taken for salvage purposes shall not apply.—[Sit W. Womersley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir W. Womersley: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I think there will be no opposition to the inclusion of salvage workers under the Bill. Everyone will agree that the

case put up on behalf of the inclusion of these men, in the same way as merchant seamen, was unanswerable. This Clause gives them the right to compensation under exactly the same conditions. I am told that those who represent that class of worker are very pleased that we have been able to include them.

Petty Officer Herbert: I want to get the thing clear. May I take it that pensions will be payable to salvage workers, in this river, for example, wherever the tide flows? I am wondering whether I can get the question of the tugs in the area of Southend dealt with, too.

Sir W. Womersley: Tugs in the Southend area are included.

Petty Officer Herbert: Where does my right hon. Friend find that stated? Southend is actually within the seaward limit.

Sir W. Womersley: I can give my hon. and gallant Friend that assurance.

Petty Officer Herbert: I am very glad to have that.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Definitions.)

In this Act and in the principal Act—
pilot boat" means any vessel-regularly employed in the pilotage service of any pilotage district, but includes any vessel which, for the time being, is being used in the pilotage service of any pilotage district in the British islands;
British ship" does not include a ship forming part of His Majesty's Navy, but includes any other ship which belongs to His Majesty, or is held by any person on behalf, of or for the benefit of the Crown;
ship" includes every description of vessel used in navigation not propelled by oars;
mariner" in relation to a ship, means the master or a member of the crew of the ship, being a person employed or engaged in seagoing service in that ship, and not being a member of His Majesty's naval forces, or a person to whom the provisions of Section four or Section five of the principal Act apply;
port" includes any dock, harbour, pier, quay, wharf, mooring, anchorage, or any other similar place;
place "includes any point on land, in the air, or on or in the water.—[Petty Officer Herbert.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Petty Officer Herbert: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I am following the process, already so gloriously begun by the Government, of tidying up the definitions. I would ask the Committee to glance at the Schedule. The first half of it consists of consequential Amendments; and then, suddenly, with out a word of warning, we are launched into definitions. In line 22 there is a reference to the definition of "pilot boat." We have to go to the principal Act, and, having done that, to the Pilotage Act, 1913, and then we have to add the words set out in the Schedule. I have tidied that up by taking the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle and putting them together. I have done the same thing in this new Clause, to all the definitions. I hope it will be accepted. If not, I shall really challenge a Division. The question will then arise of the tidy way of inserting the Clause in the Bill, and I hope that the Government will add this Clause to their own Clause 8.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I would like to support my hon. and gallant Friend in tidying up this Bill, and I hope that these excellent definitions will be accepted. It is amazing that it should be necessary always to search these past Statutes, turning over one volume after another in order, as "The Times" says this morning, to collect the rags and tatters of a definition in a series of Statutes. I wonder why this is so—perhaps indeed it is that Parliament is suspicious of the judiciary and that it meets its suspicion by the stupid, trying and exasperating practice of legislation by reference. Brevity is claimed, but brevity is really thrown to the winds. It is better to repeat at length in a Bill than to delve into one dusty tome after another which, besides wasting time, encourages irritability, which in turn tends to mar judgment—not to say anything of dirty fingers from the dusty books. It is in this complicated business that bureaucracy finds it roots. I support my hon. and gallant Friend who gives great service to this House and his country by stripping the humbug and dispersing the pomp by which mankind surrounds itself, "and by blowing away the dusty gossamer that is wound around the best intentions.

The Solicitor-General: I am sorry that the Government feel that they are unable

to accept my hon. and gallant Friend's suggested new Clause, especially in view of the pleasing manner in which it has been put before the Committee. I would like to say one or two things with regard to this point, because my hon. and gallant Friend has raised the matter more than once when this Bill has been before the House. He said that he views with no alarm the general question of bringing forward a Bill by repeal and re-enactment. I would like to consider two points. The first is that, if you have a Bill put forward in that way which was three or four pages longer than this Bill, two points would arise. It would be difficult for the House then to distinguish between the new and the old in spite of the present difficulty which my hon. and gallant. Friend has graphically described. They have then to compare and decide what are the new points to which they have to direct their minds. There is the other point, which my hon. and gallant Friend will also realise to the full, that we are bound to take longer because, with the best will in the world, of the tendency to discuss the old points which have been made before in addition to the new.
The only other aspect is, as I have tried to indicate in dealing with other of my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendments, that we must make an effort to deal with every conceivable set of circumstances. It is useless if we are going to give up that somewhat unequal struggle and allow the Bill to go forward and not attempt to deal with the difficult concatenation of circumstances which arise. We have to convey to the courts the matter which they will have to consider. My hon. and gallant Friend was rather disposed to waive that aspect, but we clearly have in mind, what this Bill envisages, that, if pension is refused by the Minister, there is the right of action in the courts. Therefore, if the claimant can bring himself or herself within the class of persons and the class of circumstances, the matter comes to the courts and the courts have to decide whether it is an injury caused by ordinary risks or by war risks. The matter may well come before them, and the Bill has to be prepared in order to convey the meaning to the courts.
I take that as preliminary to asking my hon. and gallant Friend to consider one of the points with which he has made great play, and play which we have all enjoyed. I refer to the question of a ship.


He said, "Why should we turn back to the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894? Why make the definition the meaning which is in the Merchant Shipping Act?" Those of us whose interest in merchant shipping cases is somewhat less spasmodic, although our interest in ships may be more so than that of my hon. and gallant Friend, know that if we give the reference to the Merchant Shipping Act, we bring in the result of years of authority where the question of the ship has been considered by the Court, and which is conveniently collected in some two pages of definitions. Therefore, our definition puts it beyond doubt that a ship has the meaning which is in the Merchant Shipping Act, and in the various cases that have been decided under that Act. If we were to put it out in full a doubt would be raised and it would be said that, if you wanted to have the same meaning as is in the Merchant Shipping Act, then why do we not put it in the same wording as is in that Act?

Petty Officer Herbert: Does my hon. and learned Friend say that the Judge who if he reads that "ship" has the same meaning as in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, knows just what case-law to apply will do something quite different if the definition is included in this Bill? Surely he will apply the same case-law. The only addition will be that we too shall understand it.

The Solicitor-General: I will not say that I have any doubts about my hon. and gallant Friend's last proposition, because that might be misconstrued, but with regard to his first, there is no question at all. It is one of the great facts of construction, as he will soon learn, that words in one Statute are attempted to be construed by the meanings attached to the same words in another Statute. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and myself have many times tried to argue along that way, and I am sure that he has committed the same error as I have on many occasions. We have said that they were the words in the Statute and that the meaning under the Statute was clear. I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend and I will get very far by arguing in that way, but where you put that a ship should have the same meaning as in the other Statutes, then the law attached

to the other Statutes automatically attaches to this.

Dr. Thomas: Why does my hon. and learned Friend find it easy to define "harbour" but not "port," "tidal water" and not "a mariner," and "salvage" but not. "pilot boat"? Will he say why it is easy in the one case to put propositions to the Committee and in other case extremely difficult?

The Solicitor-General: There used to be a quotation in my youth—and I suppose it still exists—which ran:
I fear the Greeks even when they bring gifts.
Apparently my hon. Friend would change it to this: "I do not like the Government even when they are prepared to meet me."

Dr. Thomas: My hon. and learned Friend accuses me of not liking the Government when they attempt to meet me. I am hoping they will meet me all the way and merely suggested that what is logical in a previous Clause is logical in this one.

The Solicitor-General: It only shows the danger that occurs when we try to meet hon. Members in certain of these minor matters. I am trying to explain what I believe is a useful and not unimportant matter, namely, the definition of a ship. I have read and heard everything which my hon. and gallant Friend has said on this matter, and I have tried to apply it. Considering the many years of difficulty which I have myself experienced in reference to construction, considering the problem with which we are dealing—and I would ask him to give it his honest consideration—is it not more important that the House of Commons, which universally desires to improve the position of mariners and to enlarge the circumstances under which they should receive compensation, should see without any doubt what is the new ground they are to cover and decide whether it is sufficient or not than that we should be spared the amount of trouble of merely turning up a couple of Acts? Which is the best? I suggest, after all consideration of my hon. and gallant Friend's view, that it is better to know what we have to do and how we are to do it.

Mr. Shinwell: This all comes of the Government yielding to the


blandishments of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert). I hope the Government will derive a lesson from this sad and bitter experience. As I understand it, the hon. and gallant Member wants to tidy things up. No one will take exception to that, but he is, in fact, only muddling things, as I shall show without entering into all these legal subtleties. He says he is anxious to avoid legislation by reference. Why has he not done it by his Clause? May I direct his attention to the third paragraph, in which he refers to the provisions of the principal Act? I do not know anything about that. Would he tell us about it? If that is not legislation by reference, I would like to know what is.

Petty Officer Herbert: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and gallant Member drew it up himself, so he ought to know what it means.

Petty Officer Herbert: It is not my composition. These are the words intended to be used by the Government draftsman, but properly set out.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and gallant Member has made matters very much worse. Now we know all along what we suspected—that this is not his own composition. He has been in the hands of someone else, but the others, apparently, were wiser than he, because they did understand that it. was impossible to define everything. Of course, you cannot define everything. You must be careful, when you seek to define, to do it accurately. What has the hon. and gallant Member done? In the last paragraph of his Clause there is an attempt to define the word "place" as including
any point on land, in the air or on pr in the water.

Petty Officer Herbert: It is the Government's definition, not mine. If the hon. Member had been here earlier, he would have understood. These words are already in the draft.

Mr. Shinwell: I am not quarrelling with the hon. and gallant Gentleman because he accepts the Government's wording. I am asking that when he does accept the Government's wording he should know what it means, if he is so anxious to have

the meaning of this Clause accurately defined. When he talks about a place being in the air, can he define that? What actual relationship has it to the matter under review? What is the point of all this? Although the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not fully acquainted with the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, he ought to recognise that the courts are. One would imagine from what he says that no case affecting a merchant seaman ever came before a court of law. They are before the courts almost every day, and there is a great body of reference dealing with such matters. It is not a very difficult thing for the courts to define the meaning of a ship, a seaman, or a place, because of the precedents and various references that are within their compass. I much prefer that method, although perhaps it is seemingly difficult, than to define narrowly these various terms. That is my objection to the Clause. If this were accepted, we might circumscribe the meaning of this Bill and to that extent tie the hands of the courts. That would make things very much more difficult. I do not perceive any injured seaman being unprotected as he might well be because of the attempt to seek an accurate definition.
I know that the Merchant Shipping Acts are not altogether satisfactory, but if I had to choose, I should accept them. The hon. and gallant Member has been led into this by people—I think they are called sea lawyers—who have an inaccurate knowledge of the position. This must be said as against those who have advised the hon. and gallant Member. It was time this was said in the House. I recognise that trade unions are not always right, but when it comes to questions of compensation they are usually right. The whole of my hon. and gailant Friend's argument has been against the trade unions, who have accepted this Bill. As against the people who have advised my hon. and gallant Friend, I would' point out that the National Seamen's Union, which is the national organisation of seamen, have not found anything to complain of in this Bill. If they had, they would have said so. The Navigating Officers' Union have accepted it. I do not know from whom the hon. and gallant Member can have received evidence, unless it be the Mercantile Marine Services Association, which is not a trade union. Therefore, if my


hon. Friends and I have to choose between the advice which the hon. and gallant Member has received from the Mercantile Marine Services Association and the advice we have received from the National Seamen's Union and the recognised Officers' Union, we will accept the latter. In the circumstances, I think it would be better to reject the new Clause. At any rate, on the merits of the case, apart from any advice rendered by any organisation, I say that the definitions which my hon. and gallant Friend has sought to introduce into the Bill are so worded that they would make it more difficult for the courts to decide, and I am satisfied that they would render no service to the seamen. I hope the Government will resist the new Clause.

Petty Officer Herbert: I am wholly unpersuaded by the arguments that have been made. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shin-well), what have the the trade unions to do with this? I do not take my advice about language from the officers and men of any kind of union. I have had scarcely any discussion about this matter with any union. What does it matter? I have sufficient knowledge of the law and language to make up my own mind on this point. With regard to one particular point that has been mentioned, the definition of "ship," would my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General like to have it this way?—as I suggested the other day to the draftsman:
'ship' shall have the same meaning as in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, namely, any description of vessel used in navigation not propelled by oars.
That is the only one that seems to worry my hon. and learned Friend. Why not alter that one and accept the rest? [Interruption.] In general, I ask any hon. Member to look at the Schedule and at my Clause, and say which is the better. I am wholly unpersuaded, and I shall ask the Committee to divide on the matter. The hon. Member for Seaham was not present when I made my first remarks. I said that the first thing is for us in this House to be clear as to what we are doing and why we are doing it; secondly, that it must, if possible, be plain to the" subject, and, thirdly and lastly, plain to the Judges. The Schedule is not plain to anyone, and I shall vote against it.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: As a humble Back-bencher, I sympathise very much with the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert) in his desire to simplify our legislation, and I fail to see the strength of the arguments used by my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell). The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford University is not attempting to impose his own interpretation, but is asking the Committee to accept the principle of not bringing in legislation by reference. It is an attempt to put a stop to an evil. It is all very well for one hon. Member to speak of how Judges will react to this Schedule, but I would say that we do not want only the Judges in this country to understand our legislation; we want to make it as simple as possible, so that the great majority of people will be able to read it, understand what it means, and make up their own minds.
What is the trend of modern events? With the number of new institutions that have been set up in the Services, I would very much like any legislation coming before the House to define up to the latest stage the exact activities and rank of many of the people in the Services. I would like there to be a modern definition of "mariner" and not have to refer back to an old Act which brought into being, in a special set of circumstances, certain categories, with the result that those who might to-day be considered as mariners are kept out because of the conditions that appertained when the old Act was passed. For instance, the trade union movement has made great strides forward since 1890 and 1893, and there has constantly been amending legislation defining the many activities of trade unions. I think it would be wrong for the secretary of the trade union branch at the present time, when asked by one of the members of his branch what powers trade unions have with regard to certain things, to say, "There is the Trade Union Act of 1942 and the Trade Union Act of 1941, but with regard to the point you have raised, you must refer back to the Trade Union Act of 1898 or 1890."
Apart from dealing with the individual points raised now, it is time that hon. Members indicated to the Government in the best possible way that when legislation is being brought forward concerning pensions or any other aspect of the


national life, that legislation should be brought up to date. As a matter of fact, it is within the power of any hon. Member to say that the definition of a mariner or a pilot boat in the past does not meet with the requirements of modern times and the requirements of the men engaged in those services to-day. I cannot see any logical reason why, when legislation is brought forward, there have to be references back. I hope the Government will take note of this protest, not with regard to one or two small points, but on the general question of making legislation of a sort which the greatest number of people can understand clearly. The working class men whom we represent on this side of the Committee would never dream of going into the libraries to turn over what have been referred to as the dusty old tomes of the past. "When men at sea, or other people, want to define a pilot boat, I trust it will not be necessary in future for them to delve and dig deeply into the

Division No. 9.]
AYES.



Bevan, A.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Bowles, F. G.
Maxton, J.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Buchanan, G.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G. (Leicester, W.)
Wright, Mrs. Beatrice F. (Bodmin)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Oliver, G. H.



Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Silverman, S. S.
Petty-Officer Alan Herbert and


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Tasker, Sir R. I.
Dr. Russell Thomas.


Hughes, R. M.
Tate, Mavis C.





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Peto, Major, B. A. J.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Hambro, A. V.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)
Hannah, I. C.
Raid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Baxter, A. Beverley
Haslam, Henry
Rickards, G. W.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.
Headlam, Lt.-Col. Sir C. M.
Roberts, W,


Beechman, N. A.
Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N. E.)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Boulton, W. W.
Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.
Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)


Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Hepworth, J.
Shinwell, E.


Browne, Capt. A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Howlett, T. H.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Bower, Norman (Harrow)
Hicks, E. G.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Cadogan, Major Sir E.
James, Wing-Comdr. A. W. H.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Jeffreys, Gen. Sir G. D.
Strickland, Capt. W. F.


Christie, J. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cobb, Capt. E. C.
Jewson, P. W.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Collindridge, F.
John, W.
Sutcliffe, H.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Kimball, Major L.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Lawson, J. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cox, Captain H. B. Trevor
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Tinker, J. J.


Gripps, Rt. Hon. Sir Stafford
Lipson, D. L.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.


Daggar, G.
Little, Dr. J. (Down)
Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)


Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd)
Mac Andrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Mack, J. D.
White, H. (Derby, N. E.)


Dobbie, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Donner, Squadron-Leader P. W.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
McNeil, H.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwelliy)
Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Mathers, G.
Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir J.


Etherton, Flight-Lieut. Ralph
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Woodburn, A.


Foster, W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. (Rochdale)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Frankel, D.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Wootton-Davies, J. H.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)



Fyfe, Major Sir D. P. M.
Nicholson, Captain G. (Farnham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral).
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Mr. J. P. L. Thomas and


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Mr. A. Young.


Grimston, R. V.
Paling, W.

past, but that they will be able to look at the last Act which was passed, in which there will have been stated exactly what those things mean. This would get rid of all the useless and tiresome drudgery of delving into the volumes of the past.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I wish to say just a word to enhance the explanation given by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert) from the document to which he referred. The definitions he has adduced in his Amendment are the definitions in the original Act which he has accommodated to meet the new Act. We should like to assure the Committee that we have been advised by no sea lawyers—in fact the only one to whom we have listened has been the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell).

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 19; Noes, 103.

SCHEDULE.—(Minor and consequential Amendments of the principal Act.)

Mr. Beechman: I beg to move, in page 7, line 11, at the end, to insert:
At the end of paragraph (5) of sub-section (2) of section four there shall be added the words 'and keepers of lighthouses which are relieved by tender.'
On the Second Reading I pointed out that, although the provisions of the Bill apply to mariners of all sorts, and I am glad to say to the crew of a lightship, and to the crews of tenders going out to lightships, they do not apply to keepers of lighthouses, even of lighthouses which are right out at sea. It seems ridiculous that a member of a lightship crew or of the crew of a tender, if injured, should be protected, yet if the keeper of a lighthouse situated far out at sea is injured on the same tender he is not assisted by the Bill. The reason for this anomaly proceeds from the definition of the word "ship." A lighthouse is stationary out at sea and a ship is something that is propelled. The very fact that a lighthouse at sea is stationary increases the hazards which must be encountered by those who live in it. They are subject to attacks from aircraft or surface craft. They may encounter floating mines, and it is their duty to report mines so that these may be speedily and effectively dealt with.

The Amendment seeks to assist keepers of lighthouses out at sea who are relieved by tender. It was thought that, as the Bill refers only to mariners, it would be difficult to include those who attend to shore establishments, though if the Government could see their way to include them too I should be only too happy. Indeed I should be very happy to see coastguards included, because I have for a long time felt that the provision for their pensions is not all that it should be. However to avoid risk of losing the whole, the Amendment has been limited as I have described. I hope very much that the Government will accept the Amendment or find some way of achieving the purpose that I have in mind, and I hope we shall hear something of the provision which is in fact made for lighthouse keepers. I know that Trinity House is interested in those whom it employs. These men perform an extremely important and perilous task for the good of the country and I think it is right that

the Committee should make sure that it has a clear statement from the Minister on the way in which provision is made for them.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): When the hon. Member raised the matter on the Second Reading I promised that the Government would consider his proposal with an open mind, and I did so with the concurrence of the Minister of Pensions. We have considered the question with an open mind but I am afraid the facts of the case make it impossible to accept his proposal. Lighthouses are not ships. They are on solid ground of some description. They cannot be torpedoed, and therefore their keepers are not in constant danger of being sunk, as are people in ships. That is the essential distinction between keepers of lighthouses and, for example, keepers of lightships and salvage workers, whom we now propose to include. Moreover, the attacks to which they are liable do not differ in practice, and have not differed in character, from the attacks which beset the general civilian population, and in particular industrial workers. How are they covered? Like other industrial workers they are eligible for compensation under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme for war injuries. For other injuries they are covered, like other employed persons, by the Workmen's Compensation Act. Is there anything unjust to lighthouse keepers as such if they receive no special treatment beyond that accorded to other civilian workers? Is their employment connected with the sea in some such way that it creates a special risk different from the risk of other civilians? Does that special risk result from the nature of their employment as lighthouse keepers? To the last question the answer is "No," because the hon. Member, who said he would like to have done so, has not in fact included all lighthouse keepers in his proposal. He only proposes to include keepers of lighthouses who are relieved by tender, that is to say, those who have to make a sea journey to reach their place of work. The special risk which he thinks strong enough to justify his proposal is the sea journey that they have to make. How many such journeys must they make, and are there not other civilians who have likewise to make sea journeys to reach their work?

Mr. Beechman: I do not think the hon. Gentleman quite appreciates why I have defined these lighthouses as lighthouses relieved by tender. It is not just because I thought there was a special risk attaching to the journey, though there is that special risk. It was in order to make it clear that the lighthouses we are considering are right out at sea, just as a lightship would be.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I will deal first with the risk in the tender, to which the hon. Member referred, and I ask how many such journeys must these lighthouse keepers make, and are there not other civilians who have to make similar journeys in going to their work? There are two classes of lighthouses which would come within this proposal, what are called rock stations and island stations—rock stations where there are only the lighthouse keepers, who are relieved once every two months, and island stations, where the keepers and their families live together, where there is no regular system of relief and where they leave the island only by special arrangement, as is required. On the rock stations they are relieved every two months, that is, six journeys a year, and short journeys. On island stations they do not make even so many journeys as six. I venture to say that the special sea journey risk is, therefore, very small indeed.
To the second question the answer is that there are other classes of workers who have to make sea journeys to their work. I cite only two, which are germane to the point—the mechanics who look after the electrical and other apparatus of the lighthouses and the superintendents who supervise the work. They make more journeys than the keepers, but they are based on shore and, therefore, no one would claim that they are mariners, and my hon. Friend does not suggest that they should be included. He says that he is thinking of the risk of lighthouse keepers on a rock a long way from the shore who are liable to be attacked by aircraft and who have been so attacked. I ask him to look at the facts. There have been attacks on lighthouses. It would not be in the public interest for me to state the figure here, but I will give it to my hon. Friend afterwards. About half the number of the attacks made on lighthouses have been on lighthouses on shore, but my hon. Friend would exclude that kind of attack.

Mr. Beechman: I hope that they can be included.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am afraid it would not be possible without driving very deeply into the general principles of compensation for war injury. The attacks in proportion to the total number of lighthouses have been far fewer than the attacks made on many coastal towns and even towns inland. Among the people employed in lighthouses there have been only three casualties. None of them occurred on the sea journeys in the tender. Two persons were injured by blast and one was fatally injured by picking up some explosive object, a thing which has happened in every town in the Kingdom. I suggest that these facts do not support the view that there is for these people any special risk similar to that of merchant seamen or of lightship keepers or of salvage workers who are included in the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that they are adequately covered by what is done for other civilians in the light of the actual casualties that have occurred and that no injustice or hardship will result if the Amendment is rejected.

Sir R. Keyes: Suppose the crew of the "Bishop" Lighthouse, which is further off than any lightship, about 50 miles from its relieving station, became casualties on the way over, how would they be compensated?

Mr. Noel-Baker: They would be dealt with as civilians are dealt with under the civilians risk scheme. There are other classes of civilian workers who have to go by sea to their work.

Sir R. Keyes: The relieving of the "Seven Stones," which is the most exposed lightship, is not so formidable as the relieving of the "Bishop." If the crew of the "Bishop" suffered from attack while they were in their tender, would they get as much compensation as the crew of the "Seven Stones "?

Mr. Noel-Baker: They would get the compensation due to them under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme. A. voyage of 50 miles is a considerable distance and involves a certain risk, but it is extremely small compared with the risks we are dealing with in this Bill to people who are all the time at sea. It is not a greater risk than that of people who live


in some towns on the South-East and East coasts who are subject to continual attack from German bombers even now. I venture to suggest that the risk to these people is greater than the risk to the lighthouse crew on their tender journeys.

Sir R. Keyes: From personal knowledge I know that the risk in relieving the crew of the "Bishop" lighthouse is greater than that in relieving the crew of the "Seven Stones" lightship and men much prefer service in the "Seven Stones." It is a much more formidable undertaking to relieve the "Bishop" than to relieve the "Seven Stones."

Mr. David Adams: I take it that the Minister has given the Committee a definite assurance that lighthouse keepers and their assistants, whether their journey to their employment be by sea or land, are adequately covered under previous legislation?

Mr. Noel-Baker: They are covered the same as everybody else.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — MARRIAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. S. C. Reid): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."?
Perhaps in view of the hour the House will excuse me if I deal with this Bill somewhat shortly. I can properly do that because the main part of the Bill is purely for a temporary purpose to meet war circumstances. It does not touch the substance of the law of marriage. It is purely a procedural Bill and, therefore, perhaps does not require the same careful' consideration as would be necessary if we were touching the law of marriage itself. I will explain the sort of case that has been giving us trouble. We have already provided in the course of the war for the case in which one of the two intended spouses is on war service, but not for the case in which both are on war service. We have had a considerable number of

cases in which both the man and the girl are either in the Forces or on some sort of war work away from home and both are out of Scotland. The girl wants, as is right and proper, to be married from her parents' home in Scotland. That is practically impossible just now, because of the existing residence qualification, and what we propose to do, putting it very shortly, is to make the usual residence at the outbreak of war equivalent to the usual marriage residence qualification; so that if the girl resided at her home in Scotland on 3rd September, 1939, it will not matter that she has been in England for the last two years, she is still qualified by residence to be married in Scotland.
I should add that exactly the same difficulty has arisen with regard to the Church law. As the House will be aware, the Church is responsible for the proclamation of banns. The civil authority is responsible for notice to the registrar. Accordingly, we consulted with the Church authorities before introducing this Bill. We were at one in our views, and the Church has already passed an Act of Assembly to achieve just the objects of this Bill. Accordingly, there is no question of Church law and civil law diverging; on the contrary, this Bill will bring them into line. I ought, in ordinary circumstances, to have said one or two words about the other Clauses which follow Clause 1, but I do not think I need do so, because they raise very minor points. If any hon. Member desires to ask a question either now or on the Committee stage, perhaps it will suit the convenience of the House if I deal with his points then rather than at this stage.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for the next Sitting Day.—[Mr. J. P. L. Thomas.]

Orders of the Day — ROYAL NAVAL VOLUNTEER RESERVE BILL. [Lords.]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. George Hall): I beg to


move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a very short Bill, and I trust that it will be possible for me to explain its purpose without taking up very much time. The Bill is necessitated by a peculiarity of the Royal Naval Reserve Act, 1859, under which the Reserve can be mobilised by Proclamation for three years. At the end of that time their services can be extended for a further two years by means of a fresh Proclamation. The conditions of service which apply to the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve are governed by another Act, the Naval Forces Act, 1903. This Act contains no power to extend the period of active service beyond the initial period of three years. This being so, it follows that, as the law now stands, the members of the R.N.V.R. can claim release on the completion of three years' active service. The object of this Bill is to place the R.N.V.R. in exactly the same position as the other naval reserves during the present war. A similar Act was passed in 1917 during the last war. This Bill covers both officers and men. There is no alteration in conditions of service at all.

Mr. Ammon: I know the Government want to get through some other business so, exercising some self-denial, I do not propose to ask too many questions about the Bill. The hon. Member has already answered one by his statement that the Bill applies to both officers and men. I presume that that means that they will be entitled to all the emoluments, compensation for risks and everything else, to which they would be entitled if they were in the ordinary Service. The only other point is that the Bill refers to an Act passed nearly 100 years ago. The hon. Member has mentioned three other Acts, and there are several others which come in between. I would suggest to the Admiralty that they might consider whether the time has not come to codify all this legislation and introduce a Measure to bring it up to date.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time "put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for the next Sitting Day.—[Mr. J. P. L. Thomas.]

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Measure is identical with previous Bills of the same character which have appeared from time to time, generally with a lapse or two or three years between them. In this case we are asking for £35,000,000 for development work. The only point I should like to make clear to the House is that owing to the circumstances in which we now are, the Post Office has to undertake a great deal of capital expenditure which is directly connected with the Fighting Services and with repairs to plant which has been damaged by enemy action. That strictly war expenditure is borne on the Vote of Credit and not on the Post Office Vote. The money for which this Bill asks is for development, mainly of the telephone system. Of the £35,000,000 asked for, £34,000,000 is for the telephone and the remaining £1,000,000 is split up between the postal side and the telegraph side.

Mr. Ammon: The civilian service?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I should make it clear that the Post Office development programme for which the money will be applied is all directly connected with the prosecution of the war, that is to say, it will provide increased telephone facilities for the vast industrial activity which supports our war effort and for various purposes connected with the Services which are conducting the war—the Civil Defence Service and some of the fighting Services. When the Post Office provides communications for the Fighting Services as it does nowadays, which are not part of the Post Office network, that is borne on the Vote of Credit and not on this Capital Account at all. The Bill does not -differ in any way from its predecessors.

Mr. Buchanan: Has a civilian no rights to a telephone as a new subscriber?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to that matter, and I will tell him what the position is. This money also provides for normal civilian services for non-essential


subscribers, when we can do it—for ordinary civilian subscribers. Owing to the demands on labour and materials at the present moment, we have been forced to restrict to some extent the provision of services in respect of ordinary non-essential subscribers and we have made a rule, a rough rule, that we cannot, in the meantime, put in a new telephone if it means erecting more than one pole or new wire on existing poles over a furlong; but if the subscriber can show that it is necessary for him, and for the war effort, the appropriate Department that covers his activity, be it the Home Office or whatever Department it may be, will certify that fact, and then we do the work. When it is a case of a new telephone being asked for which does not involve labour or material exceeding what I mentioned, we do the work as quickly as we can, and whenever men and materials are available we put in the telephone at once.

Mr. Buchanan: Some people doing essential work find the position nearly impossible to-day. I am thinking of the case of a funeral undertaker. I do not know what Department of Government would have to certify that he was essential. Perhaps the Ministry of Supply. I think nobody would deny that, in existing circumstances, he is doing work which the community considers essential.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member puts me in a difficulty when he asks me into what category the activity of the professional undertaker falls. I cannot answer the question off-hand. If he has a case in mind of that kind, the best thing I can suggest is that I should look into it and we will see what we can do to help. We still have a certain amount of discretion in these matters. Our work is devoted, like that of other Departments, to the war effort. We are trying to do the best we can with the means at our disposal for the civilian user of the telephone. I hope that the House will consent to the Second Reading of the Bill, although my explanation of it has necessarily been short and, I fear, inadequate.

Mr. McKinlay: I should like to ask the Postmaster-General two questions. The first is, does his Department come under the Ministry of Works and Buildings when it is a question of the supply of materials, and the second is, may I have an assurance that when a

person has a telephone installed his conversations are not overheard by others? There is a great suspicion among subscribers to the telephone that they have at the moment no protection against eavesdroppers and "snoopers." In some parts of Glasgow, at least, people have been "butting in" on telephone conversations, and not too politely, and there is a growing feeling that telephone conversations are listened into all over the system. Subscribers are entitled to an assurance that "snooping" will not take place. Also, as I said, I want an assurance that the Postmaster-General does not require a licence from the Ministry of Works and Buildings if he wants a bag of cement or a couple of" dozen bricks to build an extension.

Mr. Morrison: I can answer those questions very briefly. In the first place, the Ministry of Works and Buildings does construct all ordinary Post Office premises, and works in harmony with us. There is no trouble whatsoever. As regards the second point, it is against the rules of the Post Office for people to listen to telephone conversations. A certain amount of overhearing is inevitable. You cannot avoid it.

Mr. McKinley: I am not talking about those employed in the exchanges as operators, or about employees of the Post Office. There is a growing suspicion that other persons listen in with the connivance of the Post Office.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: My hon. Friend says he is not concerned about operators listening in. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman would take drastic action if an operator listened in, perhaps in the course of his duty, and repeated some of the conversation outside?

Mr. Morrison: That is so. I was going on to say that there is one exception to what I have said. As the hon. Member knows, there is a system of priorities for telephone conversations. When communications were difficult, we had, for operational purposes, to give a certain A1 priority. It was abused, and in order to check the abuse I had to institute a monitoring system, to ensure that this priority system was not used improperly to the detriment of the ordinary public. That is the only exception to which I would refer at this time.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for the next Sitting Day.— [Mr. J. P. L. Thomas.]

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for raising further money for the development of the postal, telegraphic and telephonic systems and the repayment to the Post Office Fund of moneys applied thereout for such development, it is expedient—

(i) to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums, not exceeding in the whole thirty-five million pounds, as may be required for the purposes of such development or of such repayment;
(ii) to authorise the Treasury to borrow, by means of terminable annuities or by the issue of Exchequer Bonds, for the purpose of providing money for sums so authorised to be issued or of repaying to the Consolidated Fund all or any part of the sums so issued;
(iii) to provide for the payment of such terminable annuities, or of the principal of and interest on any such Exchequer Bonds, out of moneys provided by Parliament for the service of the Post Office, or, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund. (King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) ACT, 1939.

Resolved,
That the Bricks (Charges) Order, 1942, dated 13th May, 1942, made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 19th May, be approved."—[Mr. Hicks.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — REQUISITIONED FACTORIES (STORAGE ACCOMMODATION).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. J. P. L. Thomas.]

Mr. Arthur Jenkins: I wish to raise a question with regard to the closing of a works in a certain part of the country the name of which is well known to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. The closing of these works was intended to provide storage for certain war undertakings. I think that, on the principle of war necessity, no exception can be taken to the closing of works in these circumstances, even though it involves discomfort to people, the upset of their homes and various other things. I have always taken the view that we have to put up with these inconveniences in the period of war: But I think there is definitely a principle involved in the closing of works, and that unless that is satisfied such a project should not be carried through. This subject has been under the consideration of the Prime Minister, as a result of previous harsh treatment in the closing of works and the requisitioning of premises. The matter was referred to Mr. John W. Morris, K.C., some time ago and his Report was published in 1941. In a memorandum by the Prime Minister, referred to in that Report, it was stated:
The Prime Minister's attention has been drawn to complaints that requisitioning powers are often exercised harshly. He regards it as of the utmost importance that the national war effort should not be impaired by any suspicion that the wide powers necessarily entrusted to Government Departments are exercised without due consideration, or in any way inflict unnecessary hardship.
Mr. John Morris considered that suggestion and he reported that
if a proposed requisitioning involves interference with the activities of a going concern or with the occupation of residential or business premises I think that the exercise of the powers should only be decided upon if the need is imperative and if no alternative and less disturbing course seems practicable.
That directive of the Prime Minister seems to have been totally disregarded in this case. The President of the Board of Trade received a deputation, and, as a result, he agreed that an investigation should take place in the district, to ascertain whether or not alternative accommodation was available. That investigation took place on the following day. The space available in the factory, which it was proposed to requisition, was 25,000 square feet. The following day upwards of 40,000 square feet were shown to be available in buildings that could have been used—not in one building, but in a number


of buildings. That was regarded as not suitable. Therefore, the works was closed. Some of the men employed there were put to work in other places. I think I ought to stress this because we have to give consideration to the question of whether or not the war effort is being advanced by actions of this kind. Some of the men were transferred to other works. Their production fell by no less than 69 per cent. What they are producing is a war requirement. Some of the men were sent to yet another works. Shortly after, that works was closed. The output of that works has to be made up somewhere.
I recognise the difficulties that the President of the Board of Trade will have in coming to a decision on matters of this kind, but in this case there is not the slightest doubt that our war effort was not being served by the action which was taken. Some of the men who were transferred have to travel by bus. I have made a calculation, and it is a very conservative estimate, that the consumption of petrol in conveying those men to that less productive works will be somewhere between 30,000 and 50,000 gallons per annum. There is also a considerable use of rubber, and men have to be employed in driving those buses. No bus was required when the men were employed in the other, more productive, works. The step was taken, and the works was closed. But now it has been discovered—it was known before, but apparently very little attention was paid to it—that there is no road access to the works. Anything which has to be taken to or from that works will have to go by rail. It is intended to store things there which may be, on occasion, very urgently required. It would take a long time to get them there by rail. If there were a road they could be taken in an hour to the place where they were wanted, but there are great difficulties about taking them by railway, and that is the only means unless a bridge is built across a small river. I understand that a representative of the Ministry of Supply has been there, and that he has expressed great surprise that there is no road access. It is rather disturbing that we should have reached such a position.
This matter has given rise to considerable feeling locally. I am sorry about that. We are all anxious to get maximum production at present. Working men,

looking at this matter, say frankly, "Does production matter so much after all when we can afford to allow a substantial output such as these men were getting to be lost? Does it matter so much in the other industries?" It takes away the reality of our claim upon these people to produce. This is not an argument which applies only to men employed in this industry. It applies to men employed in many industries. One hardly likes to say this, but it is said locally this action has been taken on the part of the big combines, for the purpose of securing their positions in the post-war period. I cannot prove that, but that statement is bandied around pretty freely.
The production of the combines has been reduced to about 55 per cent. of their capacity. The capacity of the industry was reduced by 50 per cent. by voluntary arrangement before the commencement of the war. The combines are still producing round about 55 per cent., whereas this particular firm has had its output reduced by 18 per cent. There is some favourable treatment here, but to what extent it goes on I do not know. I understand that one of the combines at the present time, in spite of the shortage of materials and labour, is in the process of making arrangements to produce this particular commodity four times in excess of the production of the works which has been closed. Whether that will be carried out or not I do not know, but-they are in process of preparing for it. Some of the big firms have vast sums of capital employed and they know well that, in the post-war period, unless they get a big production, they will not be able to meet the financial demands upon the money invested in these big concerns. It inclines one to the view that some steps are being taken to secure the positions of these big firms when the war is over.
In any case now we have a substantial loss of output, a 50 per cent. reduction in men's wages, unnecessary use of labour and petrol, over 40,000 square feet of unused space available, loss of working time owing to men having to work in great heats and having to travel by 'bus considerable distances and being exposed to bad weather, causing the incidence of sickness to go up very considerably. These factors ought to be taken into account when consideration is given to


the closing of works. My sympathies go out to the President of the Board of Trade because he has a whole network of interests to consider. The Ministry of Supply will say they want space. They consult the Iron and Steel Control. They make a list of works which is sent on to the factory and storage people, who make an examination and decide what is and what is not suitable. They then come back to the poor President of the Board of Trade, who has to reach a decision. He has my sympathy. I would not have raised this matter if I believed for a moment that the national interests were being served. I am absolutely convinced that they are not being served and that very substantial damage is being done by the closing of these works.

Mr. Cove: We are discussing this very important matter under great disadvantages, with a time-limit, whereas with proper notice of such a Debate, a full and proper discussion would take a number of hours. There is no doubt that in the closing of this works a great principle is involved. This was clearly revealed in the courteous and prolonged discussion in which the President of the Board of Trade took part in his Department. What is the issue? It is whether the trusts and combines are to embed themselves more strongly or whether they are to be controlled and run for the public service. The tinplate works in my Division was closed not because it was uneconomic—the irony of the situation is that when there was an investigation into the cost of production there, it was found to be relatively cheap. In spite of that, however, the works had to close, leaving the whole village desolate. Think of the effect that has on the minds of the people in South Wales. It is said that they will be transferred to other places, but they see that their employment and livelihood have gone. They do not believe that they will have any better time, owing to the action which has been taken, or more security at the end of this war, than they had following the last war. They are firmly convinced that this action was dictated by those who are in control of the big units of the industry.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): indicated dissent

Mr. Cove: I am afraid my right hon. Friend is just the handmaiden of these people. The impression one has is that he is carrying out the dictates of the big people in the steel control. There is great suspicion of the steel control in South Wales. It is suspected that they dominate the whole position. I ask my right hon. Friend to get on with the job of making this a public concern. At present there is nothing but desolation and the morale of the people who see their industry going is being destroyed. At the conferences I have attended the overwhelming impression in the minds of people in South Wales is that this action has been taken at the dictation of the big trusts. It is a big trust policy, not only for the period of the war, but a policy in order to entrench themselves when the war is over. We expect the right hon. Gentleman to stand four square against that.

Mr. Dalton: I will do my best in the short time remaining to deal with the points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins) and Aberavon (Mr. Cove). First of all, I should have thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon would know me well enough not to charge me with being the handmaiden of a large combine in the tinplate industry, and seriously, there is no foundation whatever for that view. I have to consider the evidence that is put before me. I do my best to come to a fair judgment upon the evidence, and indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool knows, one of my first duties in relation to this matter, when first I took up my duties at the Board of Trade, was to decide between the closing down of two firms. On all the evidence before me, I decided that one should be closed, and in fact, that' one was associated with the large combine which is in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon.
What I have to consider, in relation to the demand for accommodation in South Wales, is which of these factories should be closed, having regard, on the one hand, to the need to maintain the essential output of tinplate, and on the other hand, to provide storage accommodation suitable in "character and suitable in location. The particular case raised by the hon. Member for Pontypool has, as he admits, been the subject of prolonged consideration. No fewer than three deputations


have visited the Board of Trade in relation to this matter. My hon. Friend has been there on three occasions. The hon. Member for Aberavon came with him on one occasion. On two occasions he saw me, and on another occasion he saw the Controller-General of Factory and Storage Premises. I have looked at this matter from all angles and in the light of all the evidence. What is required is to get a substantial amount of storage accommodation in existing buildings in one unit within convenient distance of a large Royal Ordnance Factory. It is in order to meet those requirements that the particular works in my hon. Friend's constituency has, greatly to my regret, had to be closed. I would like to mention that during the past 12 months, the Control of Factory and Storage Premises at the Board of Trade have been asked to provide for other Departments—we act in this matter on behalf of other Departments, and not of our own free will—70,000,000 to 80,000,000 square feet of space, and to do that we have had to take over from 7,000 to 8,000 premises. I must say frankly that if there had been as much reluctance and resistance all over the country as there has been in this group of tinplate works in South Wales, the; war effort would have been very greatly slowed down.

Mr. Cove: No.

Mr. Dalton: Indeed, it would, considering the amount of time that has had to be devoted to this matter. I do not grudge that, but I say that if I and my officials had had to devote as much time, in connection with cases all over the country, to receiving deputations, conducting discussions in London, visiting the area and inspecting various alternative sites, the war effort would have been choked.

Mr. Jenkins: Is it not a fact that a number of works have been taken over in connection with which no contentious points arose such as I have mentioned? In no other cases where the Board of Trade have tried to take over works have these things arisen to the same extent. That is the whole point.

Mr. Dalton: These have been extremely difficult cases in terms of the amount of time taken up. I want now to deal with the particular points which my hon. Friend raised. He quoted the Morris

Report. I entirely accept that report. I entirely accept the Prime Minister's dictum. Operating on the great scale that we have been doing, I am prepared to maintain that the exercise of these powers is decided upon only when the need is imperative and when no alternative and less disturbing course is practicable. I have to satisfy myself in each case, and I did so in this case. My hon. Friend does not agree with my decision, but it was reached after prolonged consultation, in which he was continually taking part, with his friends. It is said by my hon. Friend that there were more than 40,000 square feet of available space in the neighbourhood. I am afraid that that is not in accordance with the information I have received from more than one quarter. In the first place, there was no one unit available, and in the second place a considerable amount of the accommodation was not suitable for the storage of the commodity which we are discussing. If we had plenty of labour and material and were living in the easy times of pre-war economics, it would, no doubt, have been possible to have furbished up these rather derelict buildings, by putting roofs on and so on.

Mr. Cove: If the Ministry had had plenty of storage, would they have closed them down?

Mr. Dalton: It is because we have not got storage space that we have had to take these premises over, and I can give no undertaking that, as the war develops, we shall not have to take over a lot more storage space in many other parts of the country, including South Wales. The war must be continued. I have had the most careful reports made, and officers in whom I have every confidence have inspected these alleged alternatives on the spot, and I say that they are not fit alternatives for the purpose. In saying that I am guided not by agents of big combines, but by those who know for what purpose they desire the storage—in this case the Ministry of Supply. With regard to what my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool has said about the conditions of labour and the transference of labour to new works and so on, that is not my concern; it is the concern of the Ministry of Labour. My hon. Friend must distinguish between the responsibilities of one Minister and another.

Mr. Jenkins: That is one of my complaints. There is no co-ordination between the different Departments. When the Minister of Labour is approached he says that it is not his business and that it belongs to the President of the Board of Trade, and now the President of the Board of Trade says that it does not belong to him but the Minister of Labour. Surely, we could have co-ordination by Government Departments on a question of this kind?.

Mr. Dalton: The decision to take these works over is my decision, following consultations with other Departments. That is my decision, and I stand by it. As to what happens to the labour which is displaced, that is not a question for me. So far as employment is concerned, that is for the Ministry of Labour, and, so far as output is concerned, that is for the Ministry of Supply. My hon. Friend has not, as far as I know, put down Questions on this matter to either the Minister of Supply or to the Minister of Labour. It is, no doubt, true that initially inconveniences may arise from the movement of labour. I am afraid that I cannot take

very seriously my hon. Friend's calculations about petrol, because what we are getting from the works in his constituency is of much greater value to the war effort than the quantity of petrol he mentioned. That matter has, of course, been taken into account, as have other matters. As long ago as 8th April, I stated in a letter to my hon. Friend that it was quite impossible for me to reverse my decision. I am sure he will agree in his heart that if I dilly-dallied and because of local pressure and other persuasions continually altered my mind, we should not be carrying on the war and I should not be occupying the post which I now hold. Ministers should take their decisions after listening attentively to all the evidence put up, as I did in this case, and I am satisfied, if my hon. Friend looks at the matter in all its aspects, he will be convinced—although it is distasteful to me and more distasteful to him—that it was the right decision, in view of the need for storage accommodation in the close neighbourhood of this important factory.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.